from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Standalone wikipedia

body:
I have created a standalone Wikipedia which could become the foundation
af a DVD release or a desktop/intranet version of Wikipedia, currently
Windows only (but should be easy to adapt to Linux/Mac).

I don't have anywhere to put a DVD image, so you'll have to bake your
own. All you need is my software (based on tinyweg and sqlite, running a
real, unpatched MediaWiki) [1] (ca. 6MB) and a XML dump of wikipedia (I
recommend [2], ca. 762 MB). Download both, uncompress the software (no
need to uncompress the XML file!), and follow the instructions in the
README file.

Some issues:
* The creation of the package takes time (think "over night") and disk
space (~2.5GB)
* Page rendering is a little slow, but bearable, roughly depending on
the number of links on a page
* No images
* It doesn't run directly from DVD, as tinyweb insists on writing log
files; you'll have to keep the whole thing on hard disk

Things that don't work but which should be easy to do (for someone with
time on their hands)
* Interwiki links are renderd as "red links" (should be fixable in
LocalSettings.php)
* Search doesn't work (should be fixable by patching MediaWiki, at least
for title search)

Technical note: The conversion software (GPL, but source not yet
included - too messy) generates a sqlite database with everything BUT
the page texts. These are copied into a single large text file, and the
database additionally stores the position of the respective text. That
turns out to be the fastest way to query the database. I tried reading
from a compressed text file, but the performance was horrible as there's
no way to directly seek a position in a compressed file.

Magnus

[1] http://magnusmanske.de/wikipedia/standalonewiki.zip
[2] http://download.wikipedia.org/wikipedia/en/20050924_pages_public.xml.bz2


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Martin Richards

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocking proposal

body:
But at the moment the reason they don't need to stock pile accounts is that
they have a free run of Wikipedia anyway!, given the choice I would rather
be blocking stock piled accounts than the current situation.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Sidaway" <f.crdfa at gmail.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Blocking proposal

> Trouble is that determined vandals are perfectly capable of
> stockpiling accounts for use in  future.  And the more anti-vandal
> measures you implement, the more determined vandals become (see
> Slashdot).
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Philip Sandifer

subject: [WikiEN-l] So what do we do about this?

body:
On Oct 18, 2005, at 2:40 PM, Guettarda wrote:

> On 10/18/05, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 18, 2005, at 2:36 PM, Guettarda wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> More to the point though, since you brought up your experience
>>> teaching
>>> comp, wouldn't you fail a student for submitting an entirely off-
>>> topic
>>> answer to your question?
>>>
>>
>> I have indeed stopped beating my wife.
>>
>
>
> Go back and read the intructions at the top of the question paper.
>

I'd invoke Hitler, but this particular line of thought Godwinned all
on its own.

-Snowspinner


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocking proposal

body:
On 10/18/05, Martin Richards <Martin at velocitymanager.com> wrote:
> But at the moment the reason they don't need to stock pile accounts is that
> they have a free run of Wikipedia anyway!,

Actually we're so good at catching and blocking big-time vandals that
the serious ones do regularly stockpile usernames.


subject: [WikiEN-l] So what do we do about this?

body:
Actually I stopped by the talk page of that article this morning, and
Snowspinner has done a very good job of listing and critiquing every
one of nearly 70 references, most of which seem to have been blogs,
agitprop websites, and Michael Moore.


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Jakob Voss

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Size of all dumps

body:
Tim Starling wrote:

>>Jakob, this ties in with the earlier request for wikipedia-by-mail.  I
>>was thinking of doing a Fundable.org drive for an array so that I
>>could serve those requests, but perhaps using the Tool server makes
>>more sense...

> The current total size of all the pages_full.xml.bz2 files from the
> latest dump is 14 GB. In total, the wikipedia directory on the download
> server is using 236 GB, thanks mostly to image tarballs and poorly
> compressed copies of the text.

Thanks! I thnik you calculated this number with the current, failed en
dump of 1 GB because 20050924_pages_full.xml.bz2 is 11.3 GB so it should
be around 25 GB for all pages_full.xml.bz2 (~5 GB with 7zip) or ~400 GB
decompressed. Seems like thanks to improving compressing algorithms the
Terabyte disk array can wait until end of next year. Spending more
server time on better compression is better than making people spend
more time on downloading.

Greetings,
Jakob

P.S: You could only additionally provide parts of the dumps like
current, articles, fulll, titles ... Maybe articles_full (version
history of articles only) could be of use but I don't know.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Funny joke...

body:
On Oct 18, 2005, at 3:04 PM, geni wrote:
>>
>
> Ok lets see how much support you can get for a policy change along the
> lines of "admins will be allowed greater disscression when closeing
> AFDs"
>

When did maintaining the status quo qualify as a policy change?

-Snowspinner


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Static HTML dumps

body:
Ilya N. wrote:
> I like it, but I think that you should make some sort of convention for
> redlinks. Seeing as there's no page there, it should link to a generic
> 'nothing here' page or something of the sort.

On a static dump such links aren't really very useful: they don't go
anywhere, and you can't do anything once you've got there. So they're
just silently dropped.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20051018/e8a2b7a6/attachment.pgp


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: On Clarity and Generalists

body:
"Stephen Bain" <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote
in message
news:f30e42de0510150615x4cf575d0ld1a888b4e65ecb59 at mail.gmail.com...
On 10/15/05, Anthony DiPierro
<wikispam at inbox.org> wrote:
> > Is Wikipedia simply a general encyclopedia? I always thought it was more
> > than that. I think the goal is really to include general information and
> > specific information, and let the user navigate easily between the two.
> > Maybe I'm wrong about this, though. It's an interesting question.
> There's room for both. Since wiki is not paper (as we are so often
> told) there is plenty of room for general articles on general
> subjects, and specific articles on specific subjects. As a reader, I
> would probably expect (and want) to find the most general information
> first, and have the option of looking at specific information if I
> should so desire. Confronting readers with all available information
> at once just gets confusing.

I agree with the above, with the proviso (for the avoidance of doubt) that
we should not avoid providing specific information in fear of confusing a
reader who stumbles upon an article on some arcane subject. We should
instead provide clear and obvious pointers to alternative articles which
present a simplified view.

Sometimes, it might be suitable to combine the simplified and detailed views
into one article, but often that merely makes it too long and complex for
ease of navigation.

On the other hand there is the perennial problem of having an article on
some abstruse subject nominated for deletion on the grounds that the person
who stumbled upon it can't understand it, so it must be "non-notable". We'll
just have to deal with that as it arises :-)
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocking proposal

body:
I meant that vandals using IP addresses that we can't block don't stock pile
accounts (because they have no need to), and that if they did begin to stock
pile accounts that would be a better situation than present anyway.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Sidaway" <f.crdfa at gmail.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Blocking proposal

> On 10/18/05, Martin Richards <Martin at velocitymanager.com> wrote:
>> But at the moment the reason they don't need to stock pile accounts is
>> that
>> they have a free run of Wikipedia anyway!,
>
> Actually we're so good at catching and blocking big-time vandals that
> the serious ones do regularly stockpile usernames.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Funny joke...

body:
On Oct 18, 2005, at 3:40 PM, geni wrote:

> On 10/18/05, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> When did maintaining the status quo qualify as a policy change?
>>
>> -Snowspinner
>>
>
> Show me where policy says admins can go against a consensus to keep
> or delete.
>

That's not what they have discretion over. They have discretion to
determine if a valid consensus exists.

-Snowspinner


from_name: Folke Behrens

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: dumps failing for en.wp

body:
2005/10/17, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com>:
> Obviously there's a synchronization bug in my prefetch code. I'll try
> and debug this today or tonight and restart the dumps tonight/tomorrow.
>
> Don't use any of the 20051017 dumps; they're all suspect.

Then please delete them.


from_name: Ilya N.

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Static HTML dumps

body:
I like it, but I think that you should make some sort of convention for
redlinks. Seeing as there's no page there, it should link to a generic
'nothing here' page or something of the sort.

On 10/15/05, Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>
> I've done some HTML dumps of Wikipedia:
>
> http://static.wikipedia.org/
>
> This is something I've been working on for the last 6 months or so. It
> was requested by WiderNet, for their eGranary Digital Library project:
>
> http://www.widernet.org/digitalLibrary/index.htm
>
> The project distributes information to universities in developing
> countries, by filling large hard drives with free or donated content and
> delivering them. The dumps have been produced to their specifications,
> but I thought they might be useful to other people as well.
>
> This is a "beta" release, I would recommend that most people wait for
> the second release, when a number of known bugs will be fixed.
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
~Ilya N.


from_name: Fl Celloguy

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocking proposal

body:
Personally, I think the new blocking policy
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy_proposal) will do
more more harm than good. The proposal would indubitably mean the blocking
(using this logged-in only registration) of most AOL IPs, Netscape IPs,
school districts, public-use computers, and major corporations. By only
allowing logged-in users on these IPs (since it is inevitable that all of
them would either be blocked indefinitely or blocked consistently), in my
opinion, is against the spirit of the Wiki - we're here to allow *anyone* to
edit, not just those who want to create accounts. I believe that not
allowing any anonymous editing has already been extensively discussed at the
Village Pump, and soundly rejected. This blocking policy proposal would take
us one step closer to not allowing any anonymous editing - AOL, school
districts, and public-use computers comprise a large amount of our editing,
and many are valuable editors and contributors that we may lose if this
policy is implemented.

In addition, I also think that this policy will actually increase vandalism.
Currently, if someone is blocked on a static IP address, s/he cannot log-in
or register and continue the vandalism - however, under this policy, the
vandal can simply create more and more accounts without limits. While there
has been some discussion regarding restricting the creation of accounts
under these blocked IPs, I still feel that this idea would encourage
vandalism. The measures currently being discussed are email validation,
captchas (the funny looking boxes that you have to type in the code for),
and a one account creation per hour limit if blocked. The email idea also
goes against the fundamental principle of the wiki, and of Wikipedia -
anyone should be able to edit or register. I know I personally wouldn't have
registered and started contributing here if an email address is required.
Regarding captchas - this also would prove ineffective, since the vast
majority of vandalism is not automated, but done by persistant vandals.
Finally, the one-hour account-creation would also have a *huge* detrimental
effect - imagine if AOL IPs were restricted to only one new account per
hour. While there are multiple AOL IP addresses, because most would
indubitably have been blocked under this new block, it would be highly
difficult - and frustrating - to create an account on all those major IP
providers and public-use computers. Are we to willingly shun away hundreds
of potential contributers in the hope that vandals will not be determined
enough to create more accounts?

While I understand the feelings of those who have AOL or use these IPs and
are inadvertantly prohibited from editing, I feel that there is too much
loss in this new blocking policy. Instead, we should just attempt to keep
blocks on these IP ranges at a minimal, considering that AOL IPs often
change with every page load. This new policy would not only fail to
effectively stop vandalism, but would also contradict our very principles -
that anyone can edit Wikipedia. We should not discriminate against anyone
willing to participage just because s/he is on AOL.

Thus, it is my humble opinion that this new blocking policy would be highly
detrimental to Wikipedia. As always, I'm seeking your opinions on this
matter, and I urge everyone, regardless of whether you agree with me or not,
to give your opinion at [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal]]. Many thanks.

Regards,

Flcelloguy
>From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.

_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement


from_name: Mattwolf Binder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Silverback

body:
When I suggested indefinite block, by no means did I mean block forever...
That came out weird... but if you see some of the arbitrators logs you'll
see arbitrators blocking people indefinitely for injunctions. My intent was
to block until he perhaps promises to be good, as you may see that I have
some unblocks in my logs for this reason. With copperchair that didn't seem
to work, yet it did with Adamwankenobi/The Wookieepedian. However when the
arbcom bans someone for a year, the person can't come back in any
incarnation, even if they start being good. Thus I don't think bans should
ever be used unless the user has exhibited sockpuppet behavior, because then
you're just blocking a bad user the chance of becoming good, plus bans don't
come with a filter on their browser blocking from all sites with 'wiki' in
their URL.

But I'm off topic. After some of the behavior shown by Silverback, I'm
honestly not a fan of the guy when he calls me a rogue (heh, spelled it
rouge at first...) administrator for blocking him for 24 hours relating to
3RR. Perhaps when I typed up the email I was frustrated at him, as he seems
to be attacking El C, 172, and several others, and I'm never really a fan of
attacks.

I feel I should also address the one year ban thing once more. I notice that
just cause its the limit, its the most often used ban. (also notice I
suggested blocking Silverback indefinitely, not banning. As arbitrators
especially you should know the two mean all the difference in the world.)
Like I remember the Cool Cat case for one where a 1 year ban was suggested,
where IMO he did nothing specifically even BLOCK worthy, let alone the
maximum possible BAN.

But this has gotten too ranty. Cheers.

-Red


from_name: Guettarda

subject: [WikiEN-l] So what do we do about this?

body:
On 10/18/05, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 18, 2005, at 2:40 PM, Guettarda wrote:
>
> > On 10/18/05, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Oct 18, 2005, at 2:36 PM, Guettarda wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> More to the point though, since you brought up your experience
> >>> teaching
> >>> comp, wouldn't you fail a student for submitting an entirely off-
> >>> topic
> >>> answer to your question?
> >>>
> >>
> >> I have indeed stopped beating my wife.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Go back and read the intructions at the top of the question paper.
> >
>
> I'd invoke Hitler, but this particular line of thought Godwinned all
> on its own.

So you are saying that, as a person running for the ArbComm, you are
unwilling to say

1. What you think about personal attacks here on the listserv? After all,
you have compared established editors (admins among them) to notorious POV
pushers. I don't want to jump to conclusions, but inasmuch as you have
chosen to run for the ArbComm, it makes sense that you should clarify your
positions, not further cloud the matter with unrelated material

2. You have drawn allusions to the LaRouche case, one of the most famous
ArbComm cases. Does this mean that you believe that the people involved in
this matter should be treated in a manner similar with Herschel...?

3. You have stated "I just have a lot of trouble with the idea that a
large-scale national issue like this - an allegedly stolen election - didn't
get national coverage. If there is something worth covering *in an
encyclopedia* in this, there is a mainstream, verifiable source for it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities#A_quick_tour_of_the_citations_in_this_article
As an ArbComm candidate, do you really think that anything that doesn't make
it to the NYTimes should not be in Wikipedia?

Should you, as an ArbComm candidate, expect to be able to just brush these
things off by with references to Godwin's law?

Ian


from_name: actionforum at comcast.net

subject: [WikiEN-l] Funny joke...

body:
-------------- Original message --------------
> On 10/18/05, Alphax wrote:
> > Apparantly community consensus doens't include putting thought into
> > closing deletion debates; admins are supposed to count the numbers and
> > press the magic button.
> >
> > Draw circle on desk. Bang head here.
>
> Of course since doing anything otherwise would involve trusting admins
> beyond the bare minium needed to keep wikipedia ticking over.

Openness and compliance with agreed upon processes,
are easier to verify than "good faith".  Processes involving
evidence, rules and supermajority protections have proven better
than assuming the character of officials in large organizations
can be of uniformly high quality.  Of course, there has to be
a minimal culture or ethic of support for due process, that
doesn't tolerate short cuts, just because they "know" what
the final judgement will be.
                  -- Silverback


from_name: Milos Rancic

subject: Ant: [Wikipedia-l] Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia - a policy question?

body:
On 10/16/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Milos has been working on software tools to allow for full support in
> *one* Wikipedia of all 4 major ways of writing this language.

Actually, four variants are only for Serbian standards :) There would
be more variants if we include Croatian and Bosnian standards and
sub-standards. Bosniaks have two more standards (just Latin and
Cyrillic) and two more sub-standards (they have Ikavian sub-standard
written in both alphabets) and Croats have one more sub-standard
(Ikavian, too; written in Latin alphabet only).

(As well as we should have three more Wikipedias in the (far) future:
so called "dialects" Chakavian, Kaykavian and Torlakian are language
systems with more difference between each other and between Shtokavian
dialect (and all standards which are based on Shtokavian dialect) then
all standards are different between each other. But, this is
completely another story.)

But, we have to finish Serbian version, first. BTW, if some person
responsible for WMF/Mediawiki reads this, may (s)he introduce me how
can we implement finished work on Serbian Wikipedia; i.e., what is the
formal process? We finished the first part of the work and that work
may be implemented on sr:.

I have an idea how not to waste three/four times more time on a lot of
articles AND how not to hurt anyone's feelings (or feelings of the
great majority of Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian Wikipedians). But, one
of the important element of this idea is that we need to work a lot on
software and communication before we start to talk about "the final
solution".


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Funny joke...

body:
On 10/18/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Apparantly community consensus doens't include putting thought into
> closing deletion debates; admins are supposed to count the numbers and
> press the magic button.
>
> Draw circle on desk. Bang head here.

Of course since doing anything otherwise would involve trusting admins
beyond the bare minium needed to keep wikipedia ticking over.

--
geni


from_name: Sergey Samoylov

subject: [Wikitech-l] wiktionary xml dump

body:
Hi there....

I think that data from Wiktionary dump (
http://download.wikimedia.org/wiktionary/en/pages_current.xml.bz2)<http://download.wikimedia.org/wiktionary/en/pages_current.xml.bz2>
is not correct.
Firstly I tried to install it like
bzip2 -dc pages_current.xml.bz2 |java -jar mwdumper.jar --format=sql:1.4 >
pages_current.sql
mysql -u root wiktionary < pages_current.sql.
But at the Main_Page and other pages data was broken.
Then I looked into xml and sow, that the data for example for
<title>Main_Page</title> not correspond with
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Main_Page like other pages.
Is it incorrect dump, or what I do wrong?

Thanks, best of all
Sergey


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Problem with linking images

body:
Arrakistor wrote:
> I  am  unable  to  locate  any  code  that would allow me to create an
> internal  link  represented  by an internal image.

This is not possible.

> why is this an issue?

Because then users couldn't easily navigate to the image's description
page anymore.

> Further, I cannot understand why in any of the link or image syntax
> help areas it not only doesn't tell how to do this, but it doesn't
> even mention if it is possible or not.

OK, that is a significant problem that clearly needs to be fixed. (But
then again, open-source documentation is always like that ;-) )

Timwi


from_name: Snowspinner

subject: [WikiEN-l] So what do we do about this?

body:
On Oct 18, 2005, at 5:35 PM, Guettarda wrote:
>
> So you are saying that, as a person running for the ArbComm, you are
> unwilling to say

As a person running for the Arbcomm, I prefer my steak rare.

If you want a serious answer, I advise asking a serious question, not
one predicated on transparent straw man arguments. I encourage anyone
who sincerely believes that I think any of the things that you are
attributing to me to reread my comments, look at the section in
[[Wikipedia:Cite sources]] on reliable sources, and look at the
articles in question. For added fun, you can look at what Herschel
did that merited his ban from LaRouche articles, (Clue: It involves
leggings) and look at the ruling in the first Lyndon LaRouche case,
which is the one I was actually referring to, particularly FoF 1 and
remedy 1.

If anyone has any questions that are actually based on what I'm
saying instead of cheap rhetorical games and straw men, I'm happy to
answer them.

-Snowspinner


subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocking proposal

body:
>
> > The proposal would
> > indubitably mean the blocking
> > (using this logged-in only registration) of most AOL
> > IPs, Netscape IPs,
> > school districts, public-use computers, and major
> > corporations.
>
>And how is this wrong?

What's wrong with not letting the 25 million + AOL users not edit
anonymously? I thought the whole point of Wikipedia was that anyone could
edit - this has already been discussed extensively on the Village Pump, and
this is taking us one step closer to the precipice of not letting anonymous
users edit. We don't want to stop anonymous editing for a significant
portion of users.

>
>By only
> > allowing logged-in users on these IPs (since it is
> > inevitable that all of
> > them would either be blocked indefinitely or blocked
> > consistently),
>
>This is not the case -- editors far outnumber vandals.
>This would simply force editors who have 1) previously
>been unlogged in and 2) happen to be on a IP used by
>vandals, to register and log in. Whats wrong with
>that?

What's wrong with that? I repeat, Wikipedia should let *anyone* edit. Just
because someone uses AOL doesn't mean s/he should have to register and
create an account to edit. We're "forcing" users, to quote from you, to
register when the whole point of Wikipedia is that you don't need to
register to edit.

>
>
> > opinion, is against the spirit of the Wiki - we're
> > here to allow *anyone* to
> > edit, not just those who want to create accounts.
>
>Bah. This affects only vandal IPs, which are fewer
>than larger. Logging in doesnt (necessarily)
>compromise anonymity -- not unless there is some
>unprincipled turning over of user logs to third
>parties. In fact, logging in offers more anonymity,
>wheras an IP address is in fact an identifier. Using
>dynamic IPs for anonymity is just a defacto method to
>increase anonymity -- it does not in fact *provide
>such.

I've never said anything about anonymity, and that's the issue here. The
issue is whether to block IP editing for a significant portion of the global
internet users. Also, what do you mean that this only affects vandal IPs? A
large number of our contributors here - regardless of registered or not -
use AOL, and this would severely curtail (in fact, eliminate) editting
without logging in/registered - which is, as I repeat, against the spirit of
Wikipedia IMO. If it was our intent to stop all vandalism, I'm sure that all
anonymous editing would have been stopped by now; however, this has been
soundly rejected multiple times.

>
>This blocking
> > policy proposal would take
> > us one step closer to not allowing any anonymous
> > editing - AOL, school
> > districts, and public-use computers comprise a large
> > amount of our editing,
> > and many are valuable editors and contributors that
> > we may lose if this
> > policy is implemented.
>
>Bah. Your rant simply repeats a lot of the same claims
>and fears without basing them in substance. If youre
>just worried that range blocks would become used too
>routinely, then thats a concern to address later
>--when such actually becomes a problem.

I'm not worried about the range blocks/ blocks of AOL IP. I think other
people are, which is one of the pros of this blocking proposal - logged in
users could still edit on AOL even though the IP is blocked. All I'm saying
is that there are way too many cons in this proposal, IMO, compared to only
a small benefit (allowing current contributors who use AOL to edit while AOL
IPs are blocked). I"m offering an alternate solution - use blocks on shared
IPs such as AOL IPs with more caution, and we should be fine.

In my opinion, I think my "rant" already has a lot of substance - I didn't
fill up a whole darn email for nothing. :-) And that's exactly my point -
that this blocking proposal would be detrimental to Wikipedia. I urge you
all to consider the long-term effects of this. Thanks.

Flcelloguy
>From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.

>
>SV
>
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 27, Issue 135
>*****************************************

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/


from_name: Neil Harris

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Placeopedia

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>
>I put latitude and longitude on a bunch of my images on the commons. It'd be
>nice if there was a standard for that, and we could probably tag a large
>portion of the images there.
>
>
>
How about a general format like:

{{geotag|system|place|locator[|reference system]}}

so that there could be any of  the following (nonsense examples with
fake data):

{{geotag|OSGB|Kentish town|TQ 763 124}}

{{geotag|UTM|White House|8SUU8401}}

{{geotag|lat_long_dms|Burkina Faso|45:30:30 N 15:25:20 E|WGS84}}

{{geotag|lat_long_decimal|Burkina Faso|45.625 N 15.123 E|WGS84}}

At the start, these could just be display templates that generate (say)
a little system-specific icon and text in a box, but they could be soon
changed to expand to contain directives such as (say)

<geotag fmt="OSGB" place="Kentish town" locator="TQ 763 124" reference=""/>

to be processed by a specialized geotag extension that is capable of
parsing each of the specified formats, and inter-converting between the
different formats and coordinate systems.

-- Neil


subject: [WikiEN-l] So what do we do about this?

body:
On 10/18/05, Snowspinner <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> If anyone has any questions that are actually based on what I'm
> saying instead of cheap rhetorical games and straw men, I'm happy to
> answer them.

I was not playing cheap rhetorical games. My first question was rhetorical -
"is that really needed" - ie, isn't that a little over the top. The correct
answer to that question is, "no,it was over the top". Someone with the
character and judgement to serve in the ArbComm would recognise that when
they overreach and someone calls them on it, they would admit their error.

But no, you choose to say "I am never wrong".

So I gave you a second chance to redeem yourself - you could make it clear
that, no, you do not really think it ok to insult your fellow editors. In
other words, it's a chance to take responsibility for your actions. Had you
done that, you'd probably have gotten my vote for the ArbComm, because it
takes some character. Instead you attack me for calling you on your
misdeeds. Very noble, great job. You have made it very clear that you are
not suited for a position of authority like the ArbComm. Thanks for the
clarification.

Ian


subject: [WikiEN-l] Funny joke...

body:
On 10/18/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> I could agree if it was clear that "community consensus" really was
> that, and not some catch phrase invented for the purpose of winning an
> argument.
>
> Ec

Ok lets see how much support you can get for a policy change along the
lines of "admins will be allowed greater disscression when closeing
AFDs"

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Funny joke...

body:
-------------- Original message --------------

> On 10/18/05, Philip Sandifer wrote:
> > When did maintaining the status quo qualify as a policy change?
> >
> > -Snowspinner
>
> Show me where policy says admins can go against a consensus to keep or delete.

Policy and practice and diverge when there isn't the cultural norms
to support policy.   Given current practice, not only can admins
go against a current consensus, but users also can, as 172 did
on the VfD for Category:Totalitarian Dictators

If we have a culture where do many people think that policy
is for others, and that they occasionally know a better and
more efficient way, then perhaps we get what we have.

                    -- Silverback


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] So what do we do about this?

body:
The key issue here is not the topic at hand but whether or not it is
verifiable. The main question here seems to be, "Do blogs count as sources?"
In certain rare cases they ought to be, but in general they are no better
than citing user pages on Wikipedia. If a blog can cite a source, then we
can find that source and cite it ourselves, I assume.

If you remove everything from the article that is cited with a blog, and
everything which is not cited but should be, what do you have? Perhaps it
would be a useful rhetorical technique to try on one of them, whether it
gets reverted or not.

Of course, all of the above rests on the conclusion that blogs don't count
as sources in and of themselves for articles of this sort. The people who
wrote the articles are obviously going to disagree on this, hence the entire
root of this dispute. I think it'd be nice to have some sort of "ruling on
high" every once in awhile about what counts as evidence and what doesn't
(what Foucault would call defining our "regimes of truth") but I'm not sure
there's any way to do it systematically or rigorously. But perhaps that
isn't needed -- perhaps a one-time, "this doesn't work in this situation"
wouldn't be so bad (seems to have worked out with the LaRouchies).

Again, this doesn't have to have to do anything with politics if it is
honestly just a source issue. If "real" sources on these topics come out
later, the articles can be rewritten, simple as that.

FF

On 10/18/05, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 18, 2005, at 1:33 PM, Guettarda wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I see. So saying "obviously you support election fraud" would be
> > appropriate
> > too, and not "needlessly" inflammatory? Interesting.
> >
> >
>
> I don't know how to answer this, except to say this. I have taught
> freshman composition at a respected university, focusing particularly
> on research. If one of my students handed me a paper that used those
> citations in that way, I would fail them. Regardless of whether there
> was election fraud, the article is a poorly written, POV mess. And it
> is not the place of Wikipedia to decide if there was election fraud -
> it's the place of Wikipedia to accurately describe the controversy
> surrounding it. A controversy that led to no successful challenges to
> the outcome of the election, and no lasting media coverage. Instead
> of this, though, we have 60,000 words of original research.
>
> -Snowspinner
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Funny joke...

body:
On 10/18/05, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> When did maintaining the status quo qualify as a policy change?
>
> -Snowspinner

Show me where policy says admins can go against a consensus to keep or delete.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Funny joke...

body:
On 10/18/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> What's wrong with keeping them open forever?

[[Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for
deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency]]

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] So what do we do about this?

body:
On Oct 18, 2005, at 8:39 PM, Guettarda wrote:
>  You have made it very clear that you are
> not suited for a position of authority like the ArbComm. Thanks for
> the
> clarification.

If you're not going to vote for me because you don't like the straw
man of me you created, I somehow don't think I ever had your vote in
the first place.

-Snowspinner


subject: [WikiEN-l] Funny joke...

body:
On 10/18/05, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> That's not what they have discretion over. They have discretion to
> determine if a valid consensus exists.
>
> -Snowspinner

While I could have great fun useing that one to rulelawer what ever
result I wanted you know as well as I do that that is pretty much
limited to decideing which votes are valid.

--
geni


from_name: Alphax

subject: [WikiEN-l] Funny joke...

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Apparantly people who think that consensus on AfD means "70-75% with at
least 10 clear non-sock/meatpuppet votes, with votes without clear
reason being disregarded" aren't suitable to be admins.

AfD is evil. Long may it and the people who play there burn in wikihell.

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ1TdRbMAAH8MeUlWAQgM9Qf+IE8OqbeoofZQkkE/XGGPFQBNN11Lmykh
SS1uJ2VKPQkMdjjQufVpwDxVKFbY+IblPtqUsZDX2eJimnvYoP5ucY0zA8rFdd20
fisuuHmSYavM7UtY6yJtKcYVBzFfHd/OAUGpanvY87pSsrjIntPxzAzMIzPMwpU+
XB3Nk/ASwX8cpXTs0QO6UD0EI7XZXFFHRu8giRtzXY0V7ZdFUsnqaH/rXXbqUvA5
4ox7tYcF7P30sVEix+3s5EANTycuI7zw2XnFlxLPbxaoRXU6Et0cG5/UhNWSfF0N
arkm5jHrStaAR463BVoCBNA+QvxH6Hoxh2vUgs9JOD3eF4CvO+Mdaw==
=eogK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Magnus Manske

body:
Timwi wrote:
> Arrakistor wrote:
>> I  am  unable  to  locate  any  code  that would allow me to create an
>> internal  link  represented  by an internal image.
>
> This is not possible.
>
>> why is this an issue?
>
> Because then users couldn't easily navigate to the image's description
> page anymore.
We could add a "link=article title" parameter to the image syntax, so
clicking the image links to [[article title]], *but* with a little note
below the article heading, similar to the REDIRECT thing; like "see the
image description page [[here|image:xyz.jpg]]".

Magnus


subject: [WikiEN-l] So what do we do about this?

body:
On 10/18/05, Snowspinner <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 18, 2005, at 8:39 PM, Guettarda wrote:
> > You have made it very clear that you are
> > not suited for a position of authority like the ArbComm. Thanks for
> > the
> > clarification.
>
>
> If you're not going to vote for me because you don't like the straw
> man of me you created, I somehow don't think I ever had your vote in
> the first place.

I didn't know you well enough to have a decision before today. I knew you by
name, knew you as an established user, and assumed the best. I really didn't
have a specific opinion about you. And I didn't think anything much about
your posting this morning - I was curious, but mostly took what you said at
face value - until I looked at the articles. Once I realised who the editors
were - good solid contributors, at least one admin - it struck me that
comparing them to LaRouchies was a totally unwarranted accusation. So I
asked "was that really necessary"? Up to that point, I still didn't see this
as anything major, but your facetious dismissal of a valid concern was
enlightening.

How I am building a straw man of you, I don't know. I realise that this is
not the whole picture of who you are, but it's a good picture of how you
react when challenged. And, it would appear, that your reaction to being
challenged is to try to redirect. You made attacks on other editors. You
unjustifiably tarred them - people who I have interacted with, and people
whose decisions as editors and admins I know and respect. The right thing to
do is to call a person on an insult like that.

And the normal thing to do would have been to say "yeah, ok, I exaggerated".
That's the answer I expected. That's what a normal person would have done.
But you didn't. You could have said nothing. That wouldn't have put you back
at the "don't know but broadly positive" opinion I started out with, but it
I probably wouldn't have thought any the worse of you. But you chose to
answer my question/comment with tangents about teaching comp. What the point
of that was, God alone knows. I never challenged you on the issue that the
articles were long and poorly sourced. And then you went for "Yes, I have
stopped beating my wife", which appears to be your favourite line (since you
have already used it in your ArbComm Q&A page). I'm not an English major, I
may lack your rhetorical skills...all I can make of that is the fact that
you somehow see my question about insults to fellow editors as a "have you
stopped beating your wife" question.

I find that baffling. I didn't set out to trick you. You can either say
"sorry, I overstated things" or "yes, I think that Ryan and Kizzle and Kevin
Baas are POV-pushers on the level of the LaRouchies" or you could say "NPA
does not apply to the mailing list". You chose to run for the ArbComm - your
opinion on Wikipedia policy are very germane. But you chose to duck the
question. So I made the questions explicit. I really do think that we NEED
to know what you think about these things. I don't know you that well, I
assumed that you abided by the norms of the community. How is asking these
questions a strawman attack?

I had no opinion about you. Sure, I held you to a higher standard than I
would a person who was not an admin, and I held you to a higher standard
because you are running for the ArbComm. I think I asked fair questions, I
think your refusal to answer them is telling. Is it unfair to judge your
personality and your character from one episode? Maybe. Obviously there is
more to you than this one aspect. But it say a lot...

Ian


subject: [WikiEN-l] Funny joke...

body:
On 10/18/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> I fail to see the connection between the principle of keeping
> discussions open forever, and your anti-obscenity project.  Your
> response is a total non-sequitur.
>
> Ec

If you look at that case it caused a lot of problems. Fortunety there
was a built in time limit on the process which ment that ultimetly it
was self limiting. You wish to take that away. You are failing to
think through the consiquences of your proposals.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Funny joke...

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

geni wrote:
> On 10/18/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Apparantly people who think that consensus on AfD means "70-75% with at
>>least 10 clear non-sock/meatpuppet votes, with votes without clear
>>reason being disregarded" aren't suitable to be admins.
>>
>
>
> Admins can think what they like. Just as long as they follow policy
> and comunity consensus when useing admin powers.
>

Apparantly community consensus doens't include putting thought into
closing deletion debates; admins are supposed to count the numbers and
press the magic button.

Draw circle on desk. Bang head here.

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ1Tu0LMAAH8MeUlWAQiCdggArYnvhVzgbkNpswTrxk3QW7fS/eQxeJi5
Nu+PIYKTrE69u9aQodzV9AF/3PcQK1dEhhcMQlNg/LbAKYXf5XV6y4bMRFOGbi+G
S03qypLKpn7EKIAdX9P6Q1/RqgQ2j5PFnq3U5+RPg9EXIxyeSwqW7E7qg03mTm+E
2OAZqpiXre3IoGIg4L8aIUv2C9jb/GbmlV/fuO/bIHEuL9/7bIgmQ+Qye5Xm5smN
F9DBR3L6aCiJEm6Dfqe3HunC+j+mw0SXrm7NOF7f+zEJdn+95Nd5yzAwJ359ktrC
qQchmR2Y6vW/p9ZAVyefvkfBdPGk1IuxojaedHjmzAi0OManrie5eQ==
=jV0S
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Funny joke...

body:
On 10/18/05, actionforum at comcast.net <actionforum at comcast.net> wrote:
> Policy and practice and diverge when there isn't the cultural norms
> to support policy.   Given current practice, not only can admins
> go against a current consensus, but users also can, as 172 did
> on the VfD for Category:Totalitarian Dictators
>
> If we have a culture where do many people think that policy
> is for others, and that they occasionally know a better and
> more efficient way, then perhaps we get what we have.
>
>                     -- Silverback

I think it is safe to say that 172 lost the arbcom case. From time to
time people make the misstake of think policy does not apply to them.
Sooner or latter reality catches up.

--
geni


from_name: Han Dao

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocking proposal

body:
That does not mean whole schools districts, isp, public library computer ip,
etc will get blocked. Only the IP in question will be block for a short
amount of time.

On 10/18/05, Fl Celloguy <flcelloguy at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > > The proposal would
> > > indubitably mean the blocking
> > > (using this logged-in only registration) of most AOL
> > > IPs, Netscape IPs,
> > > school districts, public-use computers, and major
> > > corporations.
> >
> >And how is this wrong?
>
> What's wrong with not letting the 25 million + AOL users not edit
> anonymously? I thought the whole point of Wikipedia was that anyone could
> edit - this has already been discussed extensively on the Village Pump,
> and
> this is taking us one step closer to the precipice of not letting
> anonymous
> users edit. We don't want to stop anonymous editing for a significant
> portion of users.
>
> >
> >By only
> > > allowing logged-in users on these IPs (since it is
> > > inevitable that all of
> > > them would either be blocked indefinitely or blocked
> > > consistently),
> >
> >This is not the case -- editors far outnumber vandals.
> >This would simply force editors who have 1) previously
> >been unlogged in and 2) happen to be on a IP used by
> >vandals, to register and log in. Whats wrong with
> >that?
>
> What's wrong with that? I repeat, Wikipedia should let *anyone* edit. Just
> because someone uses AOL doesn't mean s/he should have to register and
> create an account to edit. We're "forcing" users, to quote from you, to
> register when the whole point of Wikipedia is that you don't need to
> register to edit.
>
> >
> >
> > > opinion, is against the spirit of the Wiki - we're
> > > here to allow *anyone* to
> > > edit, not just those who want to create accounts.
> >
> >Bah. This affects only vandal IPs, which are fewer
> >than larger. Logging in doesnt (necessarily)
> >compromise anonymity -- not unless there is some
> >unprincipled turning over of user logs to third
> >parties. In fact, logging in offers more anonymity,
> >wheras an IP address is in fact an identifier. Using
> >dynamic IPs for anonymity is just a defacto method to
> >increase anonymity -- it does not in fact *provide
> >such.
>
> I've never said anything about anonymity, and that's the issue here. The
> issue is whether to block IP editing for a significant portion of the
> global
> internet users. Also, what do you mean that this only affects vandal IPs?
> A
> large number of our contributors here - regardless of registered or not -
> use AOL, and this would severely curtail (in fact, eliminate) editting
> without logging in/registered - which is, as I repeat, against the spirit
> of
> Wikipedia IMO. If it was our intent to stop all vandalism, I'm sure that
> all
> anonymous editing would have been stopped by now; however, this has been
> soundly rejected multiple times.
>
> >
> >This blocking
> > > policy proposal would take
> > > us one step closer to not allowing any anonymous
> > > editing - AOL, school
> > > districts, and public-use computers comprise a large
> > > amount of our editing,
> > > and many are valuable editors and contributors that
> > > we may lose if this
> > > policy is implemented.
> >
> >Bah. Your rant simply repeats a lot of the same claims
> >and fears without basing them in substance. If youre
> >just worried that range blocks would become used too
> >routinely, then thats a concern to address later
> >--when such actually becomes a problem.
>
> I'm not worried about the range blocks/ blocks of AOL IP. I think other
> people are, which is one of the pros of this blocking proposal - logged in
> users could still edit on AOL even though the IP is blocked. All I'm
> saying
> is that there are way too many cons in this proposal, IMO, compared to
> only
> a small benefit (allowing current contributors who use AOL to edit while
> AOL
> IPs are blocked). I"m offering an alternate solution - use blocks on
> shared
> IPs such as AOL IPs with more caution, and we should be fine.
>
> In my opinion, I think my "rant" already has a lot of substance - I didn't
> fill up a whole darn email for nothing. :-) And that's exactly my point -
> that this blocking proposal would be detrimental to Wikipedia. I urge you
> all to consider the long-term effects of this. Thanks.
>
> Flcelloguy
> >From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.
>
> >
> >SV
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >__________________________________
> >Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> >http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >------------------------------
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >WikiEN-l mailing list
> >WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
> >End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 27, Issue 135
> >*****************************************
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Tom Steinberg

subject: [WikiEN-l] Placeopedia

body:
Hello everyone,

I'm the director of mySociety.org, the non-profit group that built
Placeopedia as a 'BackOtheEnvelope' project to distinguish it from the
bigger, more time consuming social sites we run like PledgeBank.com.

I've joined the list because there are some pretty important things we
need to explain about Placeopedia:

1) We built Placeopedia for four reasons.
  i - So that people could browse Wikipedia places by map
 ii - So that Wikipedia could have a nice free , rich datafeed of
long/lat info to integrate on it's own terms, in it's own timescale.
 iii - So that the world had a free geo-annotation system with an
interface that didn't suck, for use on other projects, like
www.YourHistoryHistoryHere.com.
 iv - In case any of the nice Wikipedians were interested in helping
out with our other projects.

2) We did *not* build Placeopedia with the idea that:
 i - Anyone would put Placeopedia links straight onto Wikipedia pages
 ii - We would write our own script and add long/lat data to Wikipedia
in an automated fashion.

So when you discuss how Placeopedia fits in, that's our perspective.

thanks,

Tom

On 10/17/05, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> Placeopedia is an online application which integrates Google Maps
> images and Wikipedia encyclopedia articles.See
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placeopedia>
> and<http://www.placeopedia.com/>.
>
> The Board are currently working on a logo licensing contract which
> would permit such sites to use the Wikipedia logo.
>
> A new mailing list for Placeopedia has recently been created at
> <http://www.mysociety.org/mailman/listinfo/mysociety-maps> and they
> would welcome input from Wikipedians on various aspects of the site.
>
> For example, some issues already raised are whether links to
> Placeopedia should be added automatically to all Wikipedia articles
> that have a corresponding entry in Placeopedia. There is already a
> template for this on the English Wikipedia
> (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Placeopedia>) but so far any
> links have only been added manually.
>
> Another issue is whether users of Placepedia should be able to add
> categories to Wikipedia directly from Placeopedia.
>
> If you have an interest in maps, please join the mailing list to help
> answer these Wikipedia-related questions.
> <http://www.mysociety.org/mailman/listinfo/mysociety-maps>
>
> Angela.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
Director, mySociety
07811 082158
Have you signed up to get local alerts from www.pledgebank.com ?


from_name: charles matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] So what do we do about this?

body:
Guettarda wrote

>So you are saying that

<snip orctalk>

Suppose we all get back to being on the same side?

Charles


from_name: Rowan Collins

body:
On 18/10/05, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:
> Timwi wrote:
> > Arrakistor wrote:
> >> I  am  unable  to  locate  any  code  that would allow me to create an
> >> internal  link  represented  by an internal image.
> >
> > This is not possible.

Indeed - see http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=539 (I must
finish off those hacks of mine...)

> > Because then users couldn't easily navigate to the image's description
> > page anymore.
>
> We could add a "link=article title" parameter to the image syntax, so
> clicking the image links to [[article title]], *but* with a little note
> below the article heading, similar to the REDIRECT thing; like "see the
> image description page [[here|image:xyz.jpg]]".

Hm, that's an interesting suggestion... "Note: The image you clicked
to reach this page was [[Image:$1]]" Of course, it wouldn't work for
linking an image to an external (or interwiki) target, or linking to
nowhere (see the bug for why this might be desirable), but it's an
interesting option; I'll add it to the bug discussion for future
reference...

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


from_name: Walter van Kalken

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Placeopedia

body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:

>On 10/18/05, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>
>
>>I would hate for an opportunity like this, of getting something really
>>useful up and running really quickly, to be lost while we dither.
>>
>>
>
>I don't see how it's going to be lost, is there another free
>encyclopedia that they'll partner with if we don't slather wikipedia
>with externals to them?
>
>I suspect that, like myself, many people have a hard time getting
>excited about filling up wikipedia with more externals rather than
>enhancing the value of Wikipedia directly.
>
>
I agree with Gregory. I am not thrilled with extra externallink
possibilities for articles. Certainly not if the data belongs in
wikipedia anyway.

We are not google, yet some articles on the English wikipedia contain
over 150 external links. The excuse given is cite your sources. I feel
this is going to far slowly but surely and growing out of hand.

An external link is a way of saying ''we are lazy'' go to another site.

Waerth/Walter


from_name: rex

subject: [WikiEN-l] a valid criticism

body:
Regarding this:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-October/030075.html

Perhaps you could begin by not allowing people such as JamesMLane and Gamaliel to run roughshod over others.

By the way, did you know the Wiki has no entry for Barber Half Dollar?

And, if I were not so busy getting chased off the Wiki for months at a time by a cabal of Liberal Editors, perhaps I'd create an entry when I see a situation like that.  I've made a few and I'd be inclined to make more, perhaps.
We'll see ....

Now, as to your specific question, I feel that there should be a "model" to follow for all Biographical Articles. Perhaps "template" or "schematic" is the right word.

As it is, so much effort is spent on content disagreements, the actual framework of various articles, even of the same type, varies wildly.

Rex071404
-------------- next part --------------
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.1/136 - Release Date: 10/15/2005


from_name: Phroziac

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Non-admin rollback?

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Why isn't a rollback user group enabled on Wikipedia, and a
[[Wikipedia:Requests for rollback]] page made, so that we can allow
non-admins to get rollback access, as long as they aren't idiots?

It looks like it would just require this line in the settings to me...
$wgGroupPermissions['rollback']['rollback']        = true;

We get a *lot* of vandalism. We should be doing everything we can to
help users fight the vandals off.

- --
Phroziac
Encrypted Email Preferred
OpenPGP key ID: 0x8DA573EA

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDVZ7JqkDk742lc+oRAkWJAJ4h7TljMeVwwKt3Z8Jqh6nBabDigACfR2OA
w/2P1/IwC1P8vyl6W//1Z20=
=IgJl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Zzyzx11 at Wikipedia

subject: [WikiEN-l] Requests for checkuser rights

body:
In less than a few moments after the straw poll at [[Wikipedia:Quick and
dirty Checkuser policy/proposal]] passed, a new "Requests for checkuser
rights" section was added to WP:RFA. As of this writing, two users have
already created nomination pages for that section.

Although I am for having more users use the checkuser tool, my biggest
concern is that we are jumping the gun without fully setting up a full
privacy policy of checks and balances for those that will have access to
checkuser. A few users, including myself, have indicated this on those
nomination pages.

Zzyzx11 at en.wikipedia.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zzyzx11
zzyzx11 at hotmail.com

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/


from_name: Jonah Bossewitch

subject: [Wikitech-l] Category Browser/Editor and Search Widgets

body:
I just wanted to announce the release of two new widgets which make our
wikis run much smoother.

http://sourceforge.net/project/mediawiki-agora

The categoryeditor widget allows users to view the existing categories
while editing the page, and automatically inserts/removes the Category
tags into the text area when the add/remove buttons are clicked.

http://sourceforge.net/project/screenshots.php?group_id=130663&ssid=20074

The categorysearch special page allows users to query the db for any/all
articles associated with those categories.
http://sourceforge.net/project/screenshots.php?group_id=130663&ssid=20075

Neither of these widgets are very useful for the wikipedia itself, since
it has far to many categories, and the in-out widget does not currently
scale that well, but for small-medium size wikis we have found these
widgets to be very helpful.

Is the best place to announce this tool?

BTW - the mediawiki-agora is a sourceforge project modeled on the Plone
Collective.  It is intended as a repository for an assortment of useful
mw extensions that have no permanent home elsewhere.  If anyone else has
any projects they would like to throw in the mix, please contact me and
i will add you as a developer.

Enjoy,
/Jonah


subject: [WikiEN-l] Meanwhile, AfD grinds on

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Bryan Derksen wrote:
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
>> I'd hope the article were kept, and changed to explain the hoax, since
>> obviously it's a notable hoax.
>>
>>
> Yeah, I tried to throw that into the hypothetical example but it was
> getting rather large and complicated. I hoped nobody would call me on
> it. :) The basic point remains, though - the vote with backing evidence
> and detailed arguments should trump any number of ones without those.
>

Good heavens no! That will upset people! You'll never be an
administrator with such blatant direspect for consensus!

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ1UforMAAH8MeUlWAQincgf+NRHVxV0AXRyp/igHjwk1C2fqaONTHP/E
v+Nzxh2I7oi4+cfJJ1Mp2EyMd17zWCO6Qpm1sV0uSfDKVcG7UyC9DDKaUOCPHbec
wHtUqtr2+vqr/hWI5J0nySTb4HV4/7Qd6Ymxo/P7j2zceI9wYTKExtn/e41PjbgZ
hhxfxhLAcX5wF74Kpk21kABS2QTfBvINZH0Q3sir8LGiBXSt85X1UbYBLgZwbQ1v
oAGpOiJYMyGop4mKUeepcVr423mC/pInGO8UPQwvS6QuVSWtYhwJplYjOnGzGVBz
swzDwrvx0eSH10oi+pqQsx3V/DALcZ17MfuMWlvfqg9sPq4u7cRJpg==
=B2Yn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: SJ

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikimedia in the media [Sept. 25 -- October 15 2005]

body:
There were many and hilarious media mentions this fortnight.  Here's a
sampling from across the English mediaverse.

  ================== ~ ~ ~ ====================

Andrew Leifer of the Stanford U's paper (the ''Daily''):  "Your first
stop for any kind of research should always be Wikipedia, the
Internet's free, ever-evolving encyclopedia of everything... [s]imilar
in philosophy to the clothing brand Fubu" -- one has to admire his
spirit.
http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=18157&repository=0001_article

"Orlowski Tackles Problems at the Wikipedia"  ...puts encyclopedia's
inaccuracies in perspective through own example.  Orlowski's flair for
balance and neutrality is propagated through English and German media.
  http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/051018-152053

Wikipedia's reach quadruples in the past twelve months; leads growth
spurt in reference-sites that includes eHow/wikiHow:
  http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php/2005101609035361

Worth a revisit: Nick Carr publishes David Gerard's eloquent response
to his last Wikipedia posting, in full; and concurs.
  http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2005/10/more_on_wikiped.php

Wikipedia makes Foolish watchlist:
  http://www.fool.com/news/commentary/2005/commentary05100505.htm

Jimbo wales on the competition : On Wikibooks and 'slaughtering'
textbook publishers --
http://www.dailyorange.com/media/paper522/news/2005/09/30/News/Wikibooks.Offers.Free.Text.Database.Online-1004529.shtml
http://www.crankyconsumer.org/archives/000354wikimedia_foundation_vows_to_aslaughtera_textbook_companies.html

Jimbo, world traveller: "that's like opening a steakhouse and saying,
'Wait. What if people want to stab each other with their steak
knives?' ... What does that do to your community?"  Benkler's beard
makes an appearance, along with goggling Googlers and an air guitar.
  http://www.technewsworld.com/story/46275.html  (nyc, sept)

And finally...
Ward Cunningham leaves Microsoft for the open-source Eclipse
Foundation, causes media stir.  Reporters trying to reach Ward for
comment yesterday (Tuesday) were told "I'm sorry, call back tomorrow.
I'm at the Wikisym conference[1]; this is more important."  [overheard
--sj.]
http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=14044&hed=Wiki+Inventor+Leaves+Microsoft&sector=Industries&subsector=Computing

[1] a wiki conference he helped organize, in coordination with ACM and OOPSLA

--
++SJ


from_name: Tom Cadden

subject:
[WikiEN-l] 18 sockpuppet attacks in two hours on my talkpage by
	Skyring

body:
I hate to bring this up again (yawn) but Wikipedians
may need to read the latest rant placed on my talk
page by Skyring. Apart from diluded fantasies
(apparently I'm creating sockpuppet accounts - a
bizarre allegation from someone who created 18
sockpuppets to attack my talk page with in 2 hours
(yes two hours!) A really big thanks BTW to all those
who kept reverting reverting reverting. It was
appreciated.

He did state that, notwithstanding his ban, he is
continuing to edit Wikipedia at will, and "You've
spent several months expressing this hope that I will
leave Wikipedia and quit pointing out your errors, and
I wonder when the message will finally sink in that
it's not going to happen."

Wikipedia clearly needs to work out some sort of
strategy for dealing with stalkers like Skyring (who
BTW is so off the wall he actually accused another
Wikipedian of physically stalking his house!!!) At
this stage he appears to be more than just a buffoon
making a fool of himself but a potential threat to
people on Wikipedia.

Anyway - here is what he wrote. At the bottom is just
three hours of the bombardment my page is under from
that idiot. (Apologies for the length of this msg BTW
but you need to see what is going on.)

Thom

----

+	Again, I'm glad to see you've returned to editing
here overtly. Your research is good and your edits are
generally a credit to Wikipedia, though perhaps the
less said about stuff like
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidential_Inauguration_%28Ireland%29&diff=15130915&oldid=15129495
this] the better!
 	+
 	+	We need to talk about your recent behaviour. It's
not just the blast of vile hatred directed at me, it's
your behaviour as an admin that really bothers me. As
an admin you shouldn't use your powers to take part in
personal disputes, or to win edit wars. That's just
plain wrong.
 	+
 	+	In your
[http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-May/003335.html
acceptance of sysop nomination] you talk of "highest
standards of accuracy, inpartiality and correctness",
"an absolute determination NOT in any way to
personally abuse the responsibilities", and that these
are responsibilities you "would take very seriously".
 	+
 	+	You published my personal details here on 1
September, restored them twice over when others
deleted them, locked your page in an attempt to stop
them being removed again, and when another admin
unlocked the page and removed them, you then attempted
to justify your actions
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=22301040
here]. Regardless of how you feel about me, this sort
of behaviour is never justified.
 	+
 	+	You then logged out, created
[[User:AULDBITCH_LOVES_YOU|this sockpuppet account]],
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mackensen&diff=prev&oldid=22363941
vandalised] another user's page, logged out again and
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AULDBITCH_LOVES_YOU&action=history
commented] on the sockpuppet's page, claiming that I
had driven you off Wikipedia and was now attacking
another user. Then, in case nobody noticed, you
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=22370295
made the same allegations] on [[WP:ANI]]. In fact,
there was no evidence at all to link me with your
actions, as an examination of your accusations
reveals.
 	+
 	+	How do I know it was you? I can't check the IP
addresses of the sockpuppet(s) you created. But if we
look at the
[http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=83.71.15.181+
Dublin-based] anon's
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=83.71.15.181
edits], we can find a clear link with you through
those edits of [[Talk:Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall]],
looking at the
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Camilla%2C_Duchess_of_Cornwall&action=history
edits made within a few minutes of another] on 23
August.
 	+
 	+	For confirmation, I asked David Gerard, who has
access to the IPs. David looked up the IP address and
uncovered your shenanigans. Perhaps he would like to
publish his findings.
 	+
 	+	But before we get to that stage, I'd like to ask
you to make a clean breast of it, and explain exactly
how you think you can continue to be an admin after
this sort of atrocious behaviour. Your actions are far
worse than anything I've done.
 	+
 	+	It is clear to me, and to anyone who has followed
your career, that although you value sysop power very
highly, you put the responsibilities associated with
it at a lower priority than your own vanity.
 	+
 	+	For that reason, although I ask for an apology to
me for all the injustices you have committed, I don't
expect to receive one. Instead I expect to see more of
your peculiar circular reasoning in the edit summaries
as you repeatedly revert this message, and when you
are finally moved to make some self-serving comment,
it will be to express the vain hope that I will give
up. You've spent several months expressing this hope
that I will leave Wikipedia and quit pointing out your
errors, and I wonder when the message will finally
sink in that it's not going to happen.
 	+
 	+	I enjoy contributing far too much to leave the
project and apart from the usual sort of minor
spelling corrections I do to amuse myself, I've made
substantial contributions under other accounts, as I
am quite sure that David Gerard would tell you, if he
wasn't quite so discreet about revealing personal
information.
 	+
 	+	So I'm not going to leave, and I don't expect you
to. We can make life difficult for each other, or we
can find a solution, but we aren't going to make any
progress without a bit of honesty on your part.

# (cur) (last)  02:09, 19 October 2005 Fvw m (Reverted
edits by 144.131.119.224 to last version by Splash)
# (cur) (last) 02:09, 19 October 2005 144.131.119.224
# (cur) (last) 02:02, 19 October 2005 Splash m
(Reverted edits by 144.131.118.34 to last version by
Splash)
# (cur) (last) 02:02, 19 October 2005 144.131.118.34
# (cur) (last) 02:00, 19 October 2005 Splash m
(Reverted edits by 143.238.244.219 to last version by
Splash)
# (cur) (last) 02:00, 19 October 2005 143.238.244.219
# (cur) (last) 01:57, 19 October 2005 Splash m
(Reverted edits by 203.51.30.162 to last version by
Splash)
# (cur) (last) 01:56, 19 October 2005 203.51.30.162
# (cur) (last) 01:56, 19 October 2005 Splash m
(Reverted edits by 203.51.30.162 to last version by
Fvw)
# (cur) (last) 01:55, 19 October 2005 203.51.30.162
# (cur) (last) 01:54, 19 October 2005 Fvw m (Reverted
edits by 203.51.25.117 to last version by Splash)
# (cur) (last) 01:49, 19 October 2005 203.51.25.117
(More eyes! Anyone want to answer for Jim?)
# (cur) (last) 01:47, 19 October 2005 Splash m
(Reverted edits by 203.51.25.194 to last version by
Fvw)
# (cur) (last) 01:47, 19 October 2005 203.51.25.194
# (cur) (last) 01:46, 19 October 2005 Fvw m (Reverted
edits by 203.51.25.169 to last version by Jtdirl)
# (cur) (last) 01:46, 19 October 2005 203.51.25.169
(We need to talk, Jim. you can't keep hiding from the
truth.)
# (cur) (last) 01:44, 19 October 2005 Jtdirl m
(Reverted edits by 203.51.25.90 to last version by
Fvw)
# (cur) (last) 01:42, 19 October 2005 203.51.25.90
# (cur) (last) 01:41, 19 October 2005 Fvw m (Reverted
edits by 203.51.25.90 to last version by Fvw)
# (cur) (last) 01:40, 19 October 2005 203.51.25.90
# (cur) (last) 01:40, 19 October 2005 Fvw m (Reverted
edits by 203.51.25.229 to last version by Fvw)
# (cur) (last) 01:38, 19 October 2005 203.51.25.229
(While you're awake, Jim, could you take a moment to
have a word about your behaviour?)
# (cur) (last) 00:50, 19 October 2005 Fvw m (Reverted
edits by 143.238.245.172 to last version by Fvw)
# (cur) (last) 00:50, 19 October 2005 143.238.245.172
# (cur) (last) 00:49, 19 October 2005 Fvw m (Reverted
edits by 143.238.245.133 to last version by Kiand)
# (cur) (last) 00:48, 19 October 2005 143.238.245.133
(I know perfectly well what I'm doing, thanks.)
# (cur) (last) 00:47, 19 October 2005 Kiand (rv/edits
by banned user Skyring, who doesn't seem to realise
that 3RR doesn't apply when a user is banned, as their
edits are to be reverted)
# (cur) (last) 00:45, 19 October 2005 143.238.245.143
(Your persistent mindless reversion is impressive, but
aren't you getting a little close to 3RR?)
# (cur) (last) 00:42, 19 October 2005 Kiand (rv/edits
by banned user Skyring)
# (cur) (last) 00:41, 19 October 2005 143.238.245.220
# (cur) (last) 00:40, 19 October 2005 Kiand (rv/edits
by banned user Skyring)
# (cur) (last) 00:39, 19 October 2005 203.51.24.43
# (cur) (last) 00:38, 19 October 2005 Fvw m (Reverted
edits by 143.238.245.206 to last version by Fvw)
# (cur) (last) 00:36, 19 October 2005 143.238.245.206
(NPA, please!)
# (cur) (last) 00:35, 19 October 2005 Fvw (restore
edits by rd232)
# (cur) (last) 00:34, 19 October 2005 Kiand (rv/edits
by banned user Skyring, who obviously doesn't know the
meaning of the word 'banned', or how much of a fecking
8 year old he's acting)
# (cur) (last) 00:33, 19 October 2005 Rd232 (Omar Abu
Omar)
# (cur) (last) 00:32, 19 October 2005 143.238.245.140
# (cur) (last) 00:30, 19 October 2005 Kiand (rv/edits
by banned user Skyring)
# (cur) (last) 00:27, 19 October 2005 143.238.245.140
# (cur) (last) 00:24, 19 October 2005 Kiand (rv/edits
by banned user Skyring)
# (cur) (last) 00:23, 19 October 2005 143.238.244.40
# (cur) (last) 00:22, 19 October 2005 Kiand (rv/edits
by banned user Skyring)
# (cur) (last) 00:20, 19 October 2005 143.238.244.40
# (cur) (last) 22:45, 18 October 2005 Kiand (rv/edits
by banned user Skyring)
# (cur) (last) 22:43, 18 October 2005 143.238.244.68
# (cur) (last) 22:16, 18 October 2005 Fvw m (Reverted
edits by 203.51.32.57 to last version by Kiand)
# (cur) (last) 22:16, 18 October 2005 203.51.32.57
# (cur) (last) 22:15, 18 October 2005 Kiand (rv/edits
by banned user Skyring)
# (cur) (last) 22:13, 18 October 2005 203.51.32.57
# (cur) (last) 22:13, 18 October 2005 Fvw m (Reverted
edits by 203.51.32.57 to last version by Fvw)
# (cur) (last) 22:11, 18 October 2005 203.51.32.57
# (cur) (last) 22:10, 18 October 2005 Fvw m (Reverted
edits by 203.51.32.244 to last version by Kiand)
# (cur) (last) 22:10, 18 October 2005 203.51.32.244
# (cur) (last) 22:09, 18 October 2005 Kiand (rv/edits
by banned user Skyring)
# (cur) (last) 22:06, 18 October 2005 203.51.30.100
# (cur) (last) 22:05, 18 October 2005 Kiand (rv/edits
by banned user Skyring)
# (cur) (last) 22:03, 18 October 2005 203.51.31.37

___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com


from_name: Theresa Knott

body:
On 10/19/05, Tom Cadden <thomcadden at yahoo.ie> wrote:

> He did state that, notwithstanding his ban, he is
> continuing to edit Wikipedia at will, and "You've
> spent several months expressing this hope that I will
> leave Wikipedia and quit pointing out your errors, and
> I wonder when the message will finally sink in that
> it's not going to happen."

I think we need to band together and revert him whenever we see him.
Either that or block all of australia ;-)
>
> Wikipedia clearly needs to work out some sort of
> strategy for dealing with stalkers like Skyring (who
> BTW is so off the wall he actually accused another
> Wikipedian of physically stalking his house!!!)

Oh he's a complete nutter.

 At
> this stage he appears to be more than just a buffoon
> making a fool of himself but a potential threat to
> people on Wikipedia.

I agree. He will drive people away.

Theresa


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
We don't need more than a minimal quota of checkusers-enabled people.
If people apply for checkuser rights, refuse. It's as simple as that.


from_name: Keith Old

subject: [WikiEN-l] So what do we do about this?

body:
What evidence is there of election fraud?. As an Australian who follows
things in American politics, I would say precious little.

I voted to delete all of these articles because they were written from the
point of view of saying "We wuz robbed" rather than taking an objective view
of the evidence. Unfortunately, in my mind, the partisan spirit of the
majority of voters overcame their good judgement. It seems things haven't
changed for the better in any case.

These articles do not reflect well on Wikipedia.

Keith
User:Capitalistroadster

On 10/19/05, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > Is is just me, or does it seem needlessly inflammatory to compare
> solid
> > > editors - admins, no less - to the LaRouchies?
> > >
> > > Ian
> >
> >
> > If the LaRouchies and the "solid editors" are both citing minor
> > sources published in an echo chamber as quality resources, then no, I
> > don't think it's needless.
> >
> > -Snowspinner
>
>
> I see. So saying "obviously you support election fraud" would be
> appropriate
> too, and not "needlessly" inflammatory? Interesting.
>
> Ian
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Angela

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Non-admin rollback?

body:
> Why isn't a rollback user group enabled on Wikipedia, and a
> [[Wikipedia:Requests for rollback]] page made, so that we can allow
> non-admins to get rollback access, as long as they aren't idiots?

There are many reasons why not at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_rollback and
on the Wikien mailing list a few months ago at
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-June/thread.html#25366

Angela.


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] So what do we do about this?

body:
Snowspinner wrote:

> A nice sentiment, but in this case naive - I slapped dispute tags on
> them, and I'm already being threatened with reverts. I fully expect
> to be reverted by morning. If one cannot even insert a dispute tag
> without starting an edit war, how do you propose that the articles
> will be fixed?
>
> Over time? They're as bad now as they were ten months ago, if not
> worse. Articles do not generally fix in the form of consolidation -
> as was pointed out in the cases of the [[Bill Gates]] and [[Jane
> Fonda]] article.

I think it's actually not completely hopeless, having waded in a bit.  I
just cleaned up [[Moss v. Bush]], which admittedly was less of a mess
than many, and hopefully it'll stay decent.  At least 80% of the
material in most of these articles appears to have been added by
[[en:User:Kevin Baas]] (with [[Mass v. Bush]] he was basically the only
person who had edited the article), so it seems more a case of one POV
warrior with a ton of time on his hands than a more widespread problem.
But we'll see.

-Mark


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Quality vs. consensus (was: Meanwhile, AfD grinds on)

body:
> > You're right, it IS insane. But according to community
> consensus, due
> > process is all that matters. Content be damned, we're here
> to run an
> > internet democracy, not write an encyclopedia!
> >
> > - --
> > Alphax                      |   /"\
>
> I'm not sure you're being sarcastic here, or whether you
> really mean it... Anyway, Wikipedia is NOT a democracy.
>
> --Mgm

I think the word you're looking for is "irony". Alphax was making the
ironic observation that an overwhelming number of Wikipedians are more
concerned with consensus than with quality.

Or maybe I'm making this observation and crediting it to Alphax? No
matter: it's been said many times before.

Let's not confuse means with ends. Our GOAL is to write an encyclopedia.
It shall consist of many articles which refer to each other (often by
[[links like this]]). These articles describe the world outside of
Wikipedia and rely on sources such as common knowledge, expert scholars,
and frequently just "your average joe who happens to know something".

Our method has been to allow everyone in the world to participate.

GOAL - the "end" we have in mind.
METHOD - the "means" by which we intend to achieve this end

The question I wish to address is what method or "means" will best help
us achieve our goal. Anything which has worked so far, but is now
proving an obstacle should be re-examined.

Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikitech-l] local bots

body:
Pakaran made a comment on irc which really makes a lot of sense to me

Why could not be bureaucrat be allowed to give bots on their local
projects ? They are more likely to know the peoople as well as the rules.

And generally, it is not a sensitive issue such as removing sysop status
or giving check user. It is not easily abusable either.

Of course, it still make sense to ask stewards for help for global bots.
But frankly, what about giving bureaucrat the ability to give user a bot
flag ?

Anthere


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: So what do we do about this?

body:
"Fastfission"  wrote:
> The key issue here is not the topic at hand but whether or not it is
> verifiable. The main question here seems to be, "Do blogs count as
> sources?"
> In certain rare cases they ought to be, but in general they are no better
> than citing user pages on Wikipedia. If a blog can cite a source, then we
> can find that source and cite it ourselves, I assume.

If the article is not actually about a particular blog, you'd be on rather
shaky ground depending upon it as a "primary source".

IMNSHO

HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: dpbsmith at verizon.net

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: The whole point of wikipedia

body:
>From: "Fl Celloguy" <flcelloguy at hotmail.com>

>What's wrong with not letting the 25 million + AOL users not edit
>anonymously? I thought the whole point of Wikipedia was that anyone could
>edit - this has already been discussed extensively on the Village Pump, and
>this is taking us one step closer to the precipice of not letting anonymous
>users edit. We don't want to stop anonymous editing for a significant
>portion of users.

I hold this truth to be self-evident: the whole point of Wikipedia is to
produce a free encyclopedia.

To secure this goal, policies and practices have been instituted. Whenever
current policies and practices becomes destructive of this goal, it is
appropriate that the community institute such new practices as seem as to
them shall seem most likely to secure the goal of producing a free
encyclopedia.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that practices long established, such as zero-
threshold editing should not be changed for light and transient causes.


from_name: Andrew Lih

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Placeopedia

body:
On 10/18/05, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/18/05, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> > I would hate for an opportunity like this, of getting something really
> > useful up and running really quickly, to be lost while we dither.
>
> I don't see how it's going to be lost, is there another free
> encyclopedia that they'll partner with if we don't slather wikipedia
> with externals to them?
>
> I suspect that, like myself, many people have a hard time getting
> excited about filling up wikipedia with more externals rather than
> enhancing the value of Wikipedia directly.
>
> Geodata in articles about subjects which have a definite location
> belongs in Wikipedia, that much is clear.  I don't think its at all
> clear that we need to undertake a large effort to integrate with a
> third party site which is providing a service we should ultimately
> provide ourselves.

I agree. I hate to pour cold water on what would be very cool and
potentially useful.

But if you've used Placeopedia, you'll notice it's not wiki.

While you can place a "pin" on their map and link to a Wikipedia
article, you cannot directly change another person's contribution if
you have an issue with it. You have to fill out a form and an
alternate location which gets submitted. The process thereafter is
unknown.

Who are the folks mediating that decision? Suddenly we would have
Wikipedia pointing (en mass) to a map system controlled by a single
person/entity. There is not much information on their site, other than
to mail "team at placeopedia.com." The "mysociety.org" site which
sponsors it points to Tom Steinberg as the project leader.

But given Wikipedia's tradition of openess and transparency, a strong
link to Placeopedia, the way it operates now would seem to be rather
incompatible with that idea.

-Andrew


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Placeopedia


from_name: Kelly Martin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Checkuser fiasco

body:
On 10/19/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> Look, I'm happy with the board appointing trusted people to use
> checkuser.  I don't  mind if this is delegated to arbcom.
>
> But I'm not happy at all about having a RFA-style beauty contest for
> people to use checkuser.  Nope.   This isn't how we do things
> associated with privacy.

The notion that consensus *alone* can determine who is entitled to
checkuser rights is laughable.  The effectiveness of RFA in culling
inappropriate candidates from admin rights lately has been quite poor;
I dread to think what the results would be of letting checkuser get
handed out this way

No, sorry, this simply won't do.

Kelly


list: foundation-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikipedias in China

body:
scy_hk and theodorian, on irc, just reported at least
part of China was not accessing all Wikipedias today,
starting around 17:30(UTC+8)

Shizao put a mail about it :
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikizh-l/2005-October/000217.html

Chinese editors are right now having a chat about it
and a report page was set.

Ant

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikipedias in China


subject: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom vote (was: So what do we do about this?)

body:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Snowspinner [mailto:Snowspinner at gmail.com]

> If you're not going to vote for me because you don't like the straw
> man of me you created, I somehow don't think I ever had your vote in
> the first place.
>
> -Snowspinner
>

When is the election, and where do I go to vote?

Ed Poor


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Funny joke...

body:
Closing an AFD debate is not just about the numbers. If I come across
one where there's one reasoned vote that explains it's a copyvio or
hoax while there's 30 others voting keep without such reasoning, I
would still close in favor of the one explained vote, despite the
numbers.

--Mgm


body:
Zzyzx is right. A lot of people supported the idea, provided more
detailed policy was created.
We should do that before accepting any nominations.

--Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Meanwhile, AfD grinds on

body:
On 10/18/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Bryan Derksen wrote:
> > Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> >
> >> I'd hope the article were kept, and changed to explain the hoax, since
> >> obviously it's a notable hoax.
> >>
> >>
> > Yeah, I tried to throw that into the hypothetical example but it was
> > getting rather large and complicated. I hoped nobody would call me on
> > it. :) The basic point remains, though - the vote with backing evidence
> > and detailed arguments should trump any number of ones without those.
> >
>
> Good heavens no! That will upset people! You'll never be an
> administrator with such blatant direspect for consensus!
>
> - --
> Alphax                      |   /"\

So you mean to say that if there's a "consensus" of a number of
trusted users who vote to delete ("Delete, actor vanity") for example
a Oscar nominated actor (they just don't know it), you're going with
the majority and delete it even when there's one person saying "Keep,
it's an Oscar nominated actor"? That's insane! Common sense should
never be overthrown by blanket unreasoned votes. AFD is about the
discussion.

--Mgm


from_name: Marco Chiesa

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Non-admin rollback?

body:
Phroziac wrote:

>Why isn't a rollback user group enabled on Wikipedia, and a
>[[Wikipedia:Requests for rollback]] page made, so that we can allow
>non-admins to get rollback access, as long as they aren't idiots?
>
>It looks like it would just require this line in the settings to me...
>$wgGroupPermissions['rollback']['rollback']        = true;
>
>We get a *lot* of vandalism. We should be doing everything we can to
>help users fight the vandals off.
>
>
>
Well, I used to do manual rollback (i.e. modifying the previous version
and saving it) before becoming admin on it.wiki, it's just slightly
longer but it works the same; sometimes even admins may prefer it, since
that allows to put reason for rollbacking in the subject.
Cruccone


from_name: Puddl Duk

body:
On 10/19/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> Can someone clarify whether the software records your IP address every
> time
> you access a page, or only when you edit? If it's the former, does anyone
> have any ideas how to block this information without constantly logging in
> and out?
> I don't mind Wikimedia tracking what I edit, but I don't want you tracking
> what I read.

see http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy#Private_logging


from_name: Tom Steinberg

body:
> Who are the folks mediating that decision?

At the moment that's us, but for no greater reason than we happened to
built it that way, and we weren't expecting many corrections, or
indeed 6000 submissions in a couple of weeks. Making the corrections
inteface open is no problem.

 Suddenly we would have
> Wikipedia pointing (en mass) to a map system controlled by a single
> person/entity. There is not much information on their site, other than
> to mail "team at placeopedia.com." The "mysociety.org" site which
> sponsors it points to Tom Steinberg as the project leader.

  Hello!

> But given Wikipedia's tradition of openess and transparency, a strong
> link to Placeopedia, the way it operates now would seem to be rather
> incompatible with that idea.

I think you might be confusing tablets of stone with 'the way we
happened to build this project in a couple of days'. If you want it
open, it'll be open. The only question is how to make such a revision
interface work.

Tom


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Static HTML dumps

body:
"Tim Starling"
<t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote in
message news:dir0g4$47q$1 at sea.gmane.org...
> I've done some HTML dumps of Wikipedia:

Looking good so far. Congratulations.

> This is a "beta" release, I would recommend that most people wait for
> the second release, when a number of known bugs will be fixed.

Would this include the "syntax error" which is all that IE will grudgingly
divulge as an explanation why the little yellow triangle appears?

Is there a Wiki page for this somewhere? I'd like to keep track of
progress...
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: Felipe Ortega

subject: [Wikitech-l] SQUID configuration

body:
Hi everybody.

My name's Felipe Ortega. I'm Telecommunications
Engineer and Associate Professor in the InfoTec
Department of the Alfonso X El Sabio University at
Madrid, Spain.

I'm currently working in a research project for my
Ph.D. program in Computer Science at the Rey Juan
Carlos University. I would like to analyze and work
towards better solutions for massive distribution of
media contents among a widespread volunteer users
comunity.

I think Wikimedia projects are a very good example of
initiatives that could get advantage from this
research. To start with, I would like to concentrate
in the specific problem of massive distribution of,
let's say, Wikipedia contents. Every volunteer could
contribute with a bit of disk space in order to build
some kind of grid computing infrastructure for
global access to it's contents.

To start with this work, I would be very grateful if
you could send me as much iformation as you can about
the present Wikipedia servers configuration. I've
retrieved a lot of data from meta.wikimedia.org, and
I've updated the overall system scheme, but I haven't
found anything about important info like, for example,
the SQUID cach? configuration content load balancing.

Thanks a lot for your aid.

Regards,

Felipe Ortega.

______________________________________________
Renovamos el Correo Yahoo!
Nuevos servicios, m?s seguridad
http://correo.yahoo.es


from_name: Ivan Krstic

subject: [Wikitech-l] SQUID configuration

body:
Felipe Ortega wrote:
> To start with this work, I would be very grateful if
> you could send me as much iformation as you can about
> the present Wikipedia servers configuration. I've
> retrieved a lot of data from meta.wikimedia.org, and
> I've updated the overall system scheme, but I haven't
> found anything about important info like, for example,
> the SQUID cach? configuration content load balancing.

Please be sure to post on meta any additional information you gather or
receive, so that it's there for other interested people to find easily.

--
Ivan Krstic <krstic at fas.harvard.edu> | 0x147C722D


from_name: Derek Ross

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Non-admin rollback?

body:
Phroziac said:

>Why isn't a rollback user group enabled on Wikipedia, and a
>[[Wikipedia:Requests for rollback]] page made, so that we can allow
>non-admins to get rollback access, as long as they aren't idiots?
>

If they're not idiots, we should be giving them full admin rights, not just rollback.

Cheers

Derek

---------------------------------
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] current page_id and user_id

body:
Amruta Lonkar wrote:
> I wnated to know how to get the page_id of the page being currently edited and
> also the user_id if present.

Context for the code in question is required.

Is this in MediaWiki core code?

In a parser hook extension?

In a custom skin?

In template in code?

In client-side javascript code?

In client-side user-agent-level bot code?

What do you need the information for and what would you do with it?

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20051019/fae0951a/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

subject: [Wikitech-l] local bots

body:
On 10/19/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Pakaran made a comment on irc which really makes a lot of sense to me
>
> Why could not be bureaucrat be allowed to give bots on their local
> projects ? They are more likely to know the peoople as well as the rules.

This is a deliberate constraint put in place for reasons unknown to
me, I can't see why local bureaucrats can't be trusted with the full
Makesysop interface, which would allow them advanced control over user
rights such as granting/revoking any right on the wiki. I can't see
this becoming a problem, as it would cut down on the overhead of
getting a steward to grant bot rights and in case some bureaucrat goes
AWOL we can always quickly clean up the mess (which I don't see
happening in the first place since these are trusted individuals).


from_name: Amruta Lonkar

body:
I wnated to know how to get the page_id of the page being currently edited and
also the user_id if present.

Thanks,
--
Amruta


subject: [Wikitech-l] SQUID configuration

body:
Sure.

Actually, I have identified as a great improvement the
feedback and collaborative work I could gather from
other people interested.

I'll post the first draft as soon as possible.

Thanks.

Felipe.

 --- Ivan Krstic <krstic at fas.harvard.edu> escribi?:

> Felipe Ortega wrote:
> > To start with this work, I would be very grateful
> if
> > you could send me as much iformation as you can
> about
> > the present Wikipedia servers configuration. I've
> > retrieved a lot of data from meta.wikimedia.org,
> and
> > I've updated the overall system scheme, but I
> haven't
> > found anything about important info like, for
> example,
> > the SQUID cach? configuration content load
> balancing.
>
> Please be sure to post on meta any additional
> information you gather or
> receive, so that it's there for other interested
> people to find easily.
>
> --
> Ivan Krstic <krstic at fas.harvard.edu> | 0x147C722D
>

______________________________________________
Renovamos el Correo Yahoo!
Nuevos servicios, m?s seguridad
http://correo.yahoo.es


from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject: [WikiEN-l] Checkuser fiasco

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Kelly Martin wrote:

>
>The notion that consensus *alone* can determine who is entitled to
>checkuser rights is laughable. The effectiveness of RFA in culling
>inappropriate candidates from admin rights lately has been quite poor;
>I dread to think what the results would be of letting checkuser get
>handed out this way

Can you give examples of RFA promoting bad admins lately? I don't just
mean people you opposed, of course; but people who went on to
misbehave. I genuinely don't know.

Ryan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDVobe6MKb8lYmCtcRAowDAKCK9w2lmXHp21DgOe8Rrk+nHvVUXwCgmmpp
6sD5Skn6+4NFgAq6+Hi3crY=
=QqAv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Meanwhile, AfD grinds on

body:
> You're right, it IS insane. But according to community consensus, due
> process is all that matters. Content be damned, we're here to run an
> internet democracy, not write an encyclopedia!
>
> - --
> Alphax                      |   /"\

I'm not sure you're being sarcastic here, or whether you really mean it...
Anyway, Wikipedia is NOT a democracy.

--Mgm


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocking proposal

body:
>
> What's wrong with that? I repeat, Wikipedia should let *anyone* edit. Just
> because someone uses AOL doesn't mean s/he should have to register and
> create an account to edit. We're "forcing" users, to quote from you, to
> register when the whole point of Wikipedia is that you don't need to
> register to edit.

 I really can't figure out what you're arguing here, though. Because right
now, when an AOL IP is blocked, you can't edit using it regardless of
whether or not you register. As I understand it, the proposal is to allow
logged in users to edit when they otherwise wouldn't.
 Sure, this might lead to admins being more liberal with IP blocks, but it
doesn't require it - whether or not admins are more liberal with IP blocks
is a separate issue, and we could pass policies to ensure that this doesn't
happen.


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Checkuser fiasco

body:
On 10/19/05, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> Can you give examples of RFA promoting bad admins lately? I don't just
> mean people you opposed, of course; but people who went on to
> misbehave. I genuinely don't know.
>
Ryan, I can think of three, and I don't mean people who I disagree
with for some reason, but who are in my view fundamentally unsuited,
two of whom went on to misbehave. It wouldn't be right to name them,
but it's worrying, and I feel I've noticed more of it lately. Voters
seem to think they need a reason to oppose someone, but not a reason
to elect them: the "no big deal" attitude.

I agree with everyone who's spoken out against IP addresses being
accessed on the basis of elections.

Sarah