from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Foundation-l] Clickable images

body:
Hoi,
There are two things to consider;
* Pictures in our projects should be Free. This means that the pictures
should be usable in any context.
* Because many of our projects are not Free for simple re-use, there is
a need to do stupid contortions by always show the license.

It is imho better to sort out the underlying problem than to prevent
things that improve usability. I think is really bad that it is now
suggested not to have clickable images.
Thanks,
    GerardM

Guillaume Paumier wrote:
> On 9/9/06, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> thank you for your reaction. I think your idea of putting the image in
>> the page it points to is a good idea. But I would like to broaden the
>> discussion a bit. We are now thinking about where it is used, and how
>> we can talk it right. I think we should actually think about how we
>> can use it in the broadest sense, so we can afterwards find out when
>> we can use it. The point is that people will always come up with new
>> uses of the template, and I think we should somehow state clear what
>> is allowed and what not. I only know of the use in main pages, but it
>> is also used broader I guess.
>> It could be used for flags to link to countries, or for roads, to link
>> the the article about it. (Like A1, A2 etc in
>> http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam ) So what are your thoughts
>> about it when you forget about the main page, and think in general?
>>
>> Lodewijk
>>
>>
>
> Actually, it seems your example about motorways isn't an image but a
> formatted text ;)
>
> Anyway, you're right to say we should make things clear. My opinion is:
> clickable images should be avoided. The general policy is the
> license-information should be available by simply clicking the image.
> First-time visitors are a bit surprised by this, but if we start mixing
> clickable and non-clickable images (that means respectively images pointing
> to an article/portal and images pointing to their description page), the
> situation will soon become a huge mess. Otherwise, people don't know where
> they're going to land when clicking an image.
>
> In a nutshell: avoid clickable images.
>
> g.
>
>


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject: [Foundation-l] Clickable images


list: foundation-l

from_name: effe iets anders

subject: [Foundation-l] Clickable images

body:
Sounds nice, but afaik almost every licence used demands to give
attribution. I think it is not very likely that we can alter the
image-policy in such a way that we don't need to give attribution for
every image (we are not even able to get all free images, as en: is
still allowing fair use, so all PD-like is something we can easily
forget imho)
So we *have* to think about clickable images, however I agree it would
be nice if we wouldn't have to because of all PD.

Lodewijk

2006/9/9, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
> Hoi,
> There are two things to consider;
> * Pictures in our projects should be Free. This means that the pictures
> should be usable in any context.
> * Because many of our projects are not Free for simple re-use, there is
> a need to do stupid contortions by always show the license.
>
> It is imho better to sort out the underlying problem than to prevent
> things that improve usability. I think is really bad that it is now
> suggested not to have clickable images.
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
>
> Guillaume Paumier wrote:
> > On 9/9/06, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> thank you for your reaction. I think your idea of putting the image in
> >> the page it points to is a good idea. But I would like to broaden the
> >> discussion a bit. We are now thinking about where it is used, and how
> >> we can talk it right. I think we should actually think about how we
> >> can use it in the broadest sense, so we can afterwards find out when
> >> we can use it. The point is that people will always come up with new
> >> uses of the template, and I think we should somehow state clear what
> >> is allowed and what not. I only know of the use in main pages, but it
> >> is also used broader I guess.
> >> It could be used for flags to link to countries, or for roads, to link
> >> the the article about it. (Like A1, A2 etc in
> >> http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam ) So what are your thoughts
> >> about it when you forget about the main page, and think in general?
> >>
> >> Lodewijk
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Actually, it seems your example about motorways isn't an image but a
> > formatted text ;)
> >
> > Anyway, you're right to say we should make things clear. My opinion is:
> > clickable images should be avoided. The general policy is the
> > license-information should be available by simply clicking the image.
> > First-time visitors are a bit surprised by this, but if we start mixing
> > clickable and non-clickable images (that means respectively images pointing
> > to an article/portal and images pointing to their description page), the
> > situation will soon become a huge mess. Otherwise, people don't know where
> > they're going to land when clicking an image.
> >
> > In a nutshell: avoid clickable images.
> >
> > g.
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Clickable images


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Foundation-l] Clickable images

body:
On 9/9/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> Thank you for selective snipping, in this way a solution to your long
> argument was removed. To recapitulate, we can have options for under the
> left mouse click. Think solutions please.

If you make clicking on the image do the expected thing for navigation
uses, then you obscure the attribution.  Hiding the attribution behind
an abnormal procedure would be a failure to provide attribution,
hiding the navigational use behind an abnormal procedure would fail to
aid navigation.  I did address this directly in my reply.

Further, it would be quite infuriating and not at all user friendly
for Wikipedia to further override the browsers normal behavior.
(making right click, or modifier-click (recall not all computers have
two mouse buttons) do something other than bring up the browsers
menu)...  Not to mention the accessibility problems, and browser
compatibility issues.

Some time back (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-May/035663.html)
I'd proposed we simply create a new type of image tag such as:

[[Imagelink:Foo.jpg|100px|Foo page]]

Here is an example of what such a tag would look like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gmaxwell/example

No one seemed to oppose the idea, but no one implemented it either...

I believe this would be an adequate solution for the semi-navigation
images which are used on portals.

Pure navgational images are another matter. But should probably be
solved by just calling them from the site's CSS.


subject: [Foundation-l] Clickable images


list: wikien-l

from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Can anything be done about Deletion Review?

body:
Matt Brown wrote:
> Biggest bug here is in all the "Endorse process" votes ...

Indeed. Any process that results in a group nomination of 61 articles
and allows both group votes and individual voting on each specific
article like this is a horrendous mess. What sense can possibly be made
of all the "keep most" and "delete most" votes?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060909/0baeacbb/attachment.pgp


from_name: Jason Potkanski

subject: [WikiEN-l] [Wmfcc-l] Living bio patrol on en:wp [[WP:BLPP]]

body:
BLP articles may possibly be too contrary to wikipedia eventualism to keep
inside wikipedia. Perhaps a sister project on the meta and wikimedia project
scale needs to be proposed? I have had the thought in the back of my head.
Split BLP articles off to a "LiveBiography," merge them back to wikipedia
when the persons die. This would allow the sister project higher levels of
WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS for biographical articles. We could even
allow POV criticisms, tiny minority views...via {{further}} in main
biographies and related POV articles and criticisms. By acting as a sort of
whos who directory rather than an encyclopedia, such a project could
maintain both a high standard for biographies and a place for cranks and
tiny minority views to have their say as well. Great steps would be taken to
seperate biographies from the critics. Win/Win?

Ideas? Such a fork would run concurrent with Wikipedia until it is ready to
take over.

Jason "Electrawn" Potkanski

On 9/9/06, Amgine <amgine at saewyc.net> wrote:
>
>
> On 8-Sep-06, at 9:34 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP_Patrol
>
>
> I agree, this is a major problem when working with press and also
> constitutes a large percentage of large-issue communications with the
> Foundation Office and with OTRS.
>
> The [[WP:BLPP]] addresses many of the concerns, and is a great idea.
> However, this treats the symptoms of two fundamental issue which
> en.wp is not addressing: Who is noteworthy enough for inclusion in an
> encyclopedia, and what/how much should be said regarding living
> persons. These two issues cannot be resolved by a technical solution.
>
> The Patrol is a reasonable stop-gap measure which will address the
> problems we have now, but it is unlikely to scale well, nor is it a
> solution for all wikipedias. I would encourage the en.wp community to
> create a few objective measures akin to the USA State of Florida
> judicial "Public Persons" test. It seems to me that any encyclopedic
> living persons biography must be about a person who is, at the very
> least, a public person (that is, someone reasonably well-known or in
> a position where they are likely to be addressing a general public
> audience, such as politicians for public office, newspaper editors,
> actors, radio announcers, clergy members, corporate spokespersons, &c.)
>
> It is not reasonable to have large, in-depth biographies about living
> persons. Too much information makes is included, often with such
> detail that make an en.wp article a considerable risk to the
> subject's privacy and security (such as identity theft, among other
> things.) Deep articles are prone to bias, either showing the subject
> unfavourably or too favourably, and often give undue weight to some
> minor element of their life to push a point of view (a classic
> example are US Congressional members, whose articles almost
> universally contain extensive coverage of the most recent few years
> of public service - particularly perceived scandals - and may
> completely lack any mention of previous public positions or private
> careers.) Subjects can and do dramatically alter their lives and
> goals, and en.wp articles are not able to be relevant to these changes.
>
> For these and other reasons, en.wp should develop policy limiting
> living persons articles to primary career facts and academic
> achievements, current positions held or endeavors, and minimal
> personal facts. By presenting a minimal set of biographic facts the
> community can circumvent a large number of internal and external
> conflicts, whilst avoiding maintenance issues and keeping the
> articles relevant until such time as the subjects may be viewed in
> historical context.
>
> </rant>
>
> Amgine
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [Foundation-l] Clickable images

body:
Hoi,
As we have seperate pages with the image where we have all the
information we need to attribute these pictures already. When there is a
need to have direct attribution from the picture itself, we could go the
extra distance by allowing for right and left clicking. With right
clicking bringing extra information like attribution information.

If there is a need for a solution, think towards the solution in stead
of thinking why it cannot be done. By the way if anything your argument
is an argument against images that can not be freely displayed and copied.

Thanks,
    GerardM

effe iets anders wrote:
> Sounds nice, but afaik almost every licence used demands to give
> attribution. I think it is not very likely that we can alter the
> image-policy in such a way that we don't need to give attribution for
> every image (we are not even able to get all free images, as en: is
> still allowing fair use, so all PD-like is something we can easily
> forget imho)
> So we *have* to think about clickable images, however I agree it would
> be nice if we wouldn't have to because of all PD.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2006/9/9, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
>
>> Hoi,
>> There are two things to consider;
>> * Pictures in our projects should be Free. This means that the pictures
>> should be usable in any context.
>> * Because many of our projects are not Free for simple re-use, there is
>> a need to do stupid contortions by always show the license.
>>
>> It is imho better to sort out the underlying problem than to prevent
>> things that improve usability. I think is really bad that it is now
>> suggested not to have clickable images.
>> Thanks,
>>     GerardM
>>
>>
>> Guillaume Paumier wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/9/06, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> thank you for your reaction. I think your idea of putting the image in
>>>> the page it points to is a good idea. But I would like to broaden the
>>>> discussion a bit. We are now thinking about where it is used, and how
>>>> we can talk it right. I think we should actually think about how we
>>>> can use it in the broadest sense, so we can afterwards find out when
>>>> we can use it. The point is that people will always come up with new
>>>> uses of the template, and I think we should somehow state clear what
>>>> is allowed and what not. I only know of the use in main pages, but it
>>>> is also used broader I guess.
>>>> It could be used for flags to link to countries, or for roads, to link
>>>> the the article about it. (Like A1, A2 etc in
>>>> http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam ) So what are your thoughts
>>>> about it when you forget about the main page, and think in general?
>>>>
>>>> Lodewijk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Actually, it seems your example about motorways isn't an image but a
>>> formatted text ;)
>>>
>>> Anyway, you're right to say we should make things clear. My opinion is:
>>> clickable images should be avoided. The general policy is the
>>> license-information should be available by simply clicking the image.
>>> First-time visitors are a bit surprised by this, but if we start mixing
>>> clickable and non-clickable images (that means respectively images pointing
>>> to an article/portal and images pointing to their description page), the
>>> situation will soon become a huge mess. Otherwise, people don't know where
>>> they're going to land when clicking an image.
>>>
>>> In a nutshell: avoid clickable images.
>>>
>>> g.


subject: [Foundation-l] Clickable images


list: wikitech-l

subject: [Wikitech-l] Enable COLLADA file format uploads?

body:
On 9/9/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> Michael Tiemann and the Blender folks support the use of COLLADA as a
> standard 3D format on Wikipedia:
> http://www.blendernation.com/2006/09/08/proposal-for-a-standard-3d-format-on-wikipedia/
>
> The extension is .dae. Is there a good reason not to do this?

Uploading it? Sure... I thought we already allowed .blend files, but
it appears that we do not.

But since the browsers can't view it... whats the point?

It's not like we're going to start widely illustrating articles with
content that only works for a tiny fraction of the browsers out
there... and sadly this isn't something that we can easily server side
rasterize like svg.


from_name: geni

body:
On 9/9/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> You're on your way to setting a new record for clear helpfulness in
> your responses.

It is however the correct answer. DRV only exists because there are
screwups elsewhere.

In this case I fail to see a problem. The issue can usefully be
discussed (although I thought the schools issue had taught us that AFD
was not the place to sort out this kind of thing) and as long as no
one trys add "mediawiki template code" to our list of Esoteric
programming languages no one will have done anything terminaly stupid.
In any case part of the point of  m:Instruction creep is that you
sould not generalise from indivdual cases. If you have a problem with
that case go and comment there. Something which you have not done.

Considering what it does DRV does as well as can reasonably be
expected. Yes there is drama but that is normaly due to actions
elsewhere.

--
geni


from_name: Simetrical

body:
On 9/9/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> But since the browsers can't view it... whats the point?
>
> It's not like we're going to start widely illustrating articles with
> content that only works for a tiny fraction of the browsers out
> there... and sadly this isn't something that we can easily server side
> rasterize like svg.

Well, it would surely be handy for any animation Wikibooks.  Beyond
that, I can't see any purpose until someone writes a Java applet or
something (do *any* browsers support its native display?), but there's
no harm in letting them accumulate on Commons in anticipation of that
day's possible arrival sometime in the future.


body:
On 9/9/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Putting it on Commons, presumably. Which is full of Vorbis and Theora
> which requires a software guide.

Although those should be playable from the browser sometime soon,
because we *do* have a Java (and some other language too) OGG-player
in the works.  It was one of the SOC projects, and the author has said
he plans on seeing it through.  Maybe the same next year for .dae.  :)


body:
On 9/9/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/9/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> > It is however the correct answer. DRV only exists because there are
> > screwups elsewhere.
> [snip]
>
> Evidence?
>

Because if every deletion was perfect it would be easy to argue that
it was not needed.

> As far as I can tell DRV exists because there was a group of users who
> didn't feel like they were given enough control over Wikipedia... so
> another page was required to give a larger audience their power fix.
>

That isn't a very nice way to talk about inclusionists.
--
geni


body:
I have attempted to add information about MWT to [[WP:BLPP]] along with a
series of formatting edits.

Unfortunately, It appears at the moment I can't be bold in a proposed
project/policy I started without quick reversion. I am beginning to wonder
if some editors are confusing ambiguous (or bad) process and organization
with all process and organization is bad.

Organization and readability == Good.
Organization and readability == Good.
Organization and readability == Good.

-Electrawn

On 9/9/06, Akash Mehta <draicone at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well, I'm sure we could come up with a checklist for patrollers as to
> whether or not the article is notable, and I can code AfDing into the
> MWT version for BLP if there is such a need. In terms of quality
> control, we would really need the cleanup taskforce to take a look at
> the whole category for a week or so to bring articles up to scratch.
>
> On 9/10/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 09/09/06, Amgine <amgine at saewyc.net> wrote:
> >
> > > For these and other reasons, en.wp should develop policy limiting
> > > living persons articles to primary career facts and academic
> > > achievements, current positions held or endeavors, and minimal
> > > personal facts. By presenting a minimal set of biographic facts the
> > > community can circumvent a large number of internal and external
> > > conflicts, whilst avoiding maintenance issues and keeping the
> > > articles relevant until such time as the subjects may be viewed in
> > > historical context.
> >
> >
> > And, of course, [[WP:LIVING]] has pretty much from its creation said
> > what you're asking for here: facts in the article need to be relevant
> > to the subject's notability.
> >
> > (removed developers from the cc:, as I can't see them caring about an
> > editorial policy issue)
> >
> >
> > - d.
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On 9/9/06, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/9/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> > But since the browsers can't view it... whats the point?
> >
> > It's not like we're going to start widely illustrating articles with
> > content that only works for a tiny fraction of the browsers out
> > there... and sadly this isn't something that we can easily server side
> > rasterize like svg.
>
> Well, it would surely be handy for any animation Wikibooks.  Beyond
> that, I can't see any purpose until someone writes a Java applet or
> something (do *any* browsers support its native display?), but there's
> no harm in letting them accumulate on Commons in anticipation of that
> day's possible arrival sometime in the future.

The plugin is at
http://continuousphysics.com/Blender2.42Webplugin.html ... I recall
the plugin being IE only, however.

Java is no means a magic bullet. A large percentage of our readers
have no java installed what so ever (approx 19%) and many also have
only an anchient version of java without even javasound support
(approx 17%).

From: David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>
>Putting it on Commons, presumably. Which is full of Vorbis and
>Theora which requires a software guide.

Well, some systems have vorbis and theora already installed (for
example, any modern linux distro)....  and no matter what you run,
installing support is trivial.  As far as I'm aware there is not yet a
plugin available for any of my systems for the collada files, though I
suppose I could just view them in blender.

As I said, I have no opposition to uploading them, in fact we should
probably enable that right away.... I just can't get excited over
something we're not going to be able to actually use any time soon.

In any case, Guess you don't pay too much attention to audio on
enwiki... :) We now have an experimental java based player for Vorbis.
Although java isn't a teriffic solution by itself (see my comment
above)...


subject: [WikiEN-l]  Cluesticks needed regarding WP:BLP and WP:RS

body:
(Note:The original message ended up in a moderator queue for being too
long. Plain text version only -Elec)

Greetings, Electrawn here. I think this is a perfect opportunity to
introduce myself since I am being flamed on the list here without a proper
invite. I will mention the articles in reference. Defamation and False light
are serious problems with wikipedia and need to be addressed now.
Eventualism is not going to work in this case, this is a ticking bomb that
has already gone off twice, first with Siegenthaler, and parodied with
"Wikiality." If we are going to hand off cluesticks in posts, we should hand
them to the reflections in the mirror. We need to resolve the issues before
the messengers and lawyers arrive with a subpoena.

Reference/Disclaimer: The information in this post derives from talk at Kyra
Phillips and Jeff Gannon. Kyra Phillips is a CNN news anchor who seems to
lean conservative. Jeff Gannon was a reporter with dubious credentials
involved in a white house scandal. Administrator Rob/Gamaliel is currently
in arbitration with editor Crockspot over edits to Jeff Gannon.

For much of this post, I suggest readers read
http://www.chillingeffects.org/defamation/faq.cgi .

> Of course I fully support the spirit and motives behind BLP and
> obviously I see the urgent need to make sure serious allegations
> against living people are fully and reliably sourced.  But people are
> stretching BLP far beyond what it should be used to combat - unsourced
> and unreliable assertions.  Now people are using it to remove all
> sorts of critical information that would reasonably be included and to
> further their own ideological agendas.  Some examples, all typed in
> with presumably a straight face.

The contrary to that is that criticisms of Kyra Phillips were petty, not
really criticisms, and provided NPOV:Undue Weight to tiny minority
arguments. In regards to defamation and potential libel, the
statements/criticisms on the Kyra Phillips are likely (
http://www.chillingeffects.org/defamation/faq.cgi#QID526) Defamation per se:

   - Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession,
   trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in
   those respects that the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or
   by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or
   business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits.

Journalists pride themselves on objectivity and painting them as unobjective
or biased may cause injury. The section itself may paint Kyra Phillips in a
false light, (http://www.chillingeffects.org/defamation/faq.cgi#QID726).
Yes, it seems by letting a tiny majority have equal say, this is potential
defamation.

Legal or illegal, such biographies should be given benefit of the doubt and
extreme careful vetting to negative criticism. Its an encyclopedia, not a
soapbox.  If an editor rushes to add one negative thing without adding two
positive things, that should be a clear clue that its an agenda and NPOV.

BLP is not just for combating "unsourced and unreliable assertions." BLP is
an policy to combat against defamation. WP:LIBEL needs to be defined to
protect wikipedia from both agenda editors and lawsuit happy individuals.

Lets beat this in like a headon commercial.

BLP is a policy to protect biography subjects and wikipedia from defamation.
BLP is a policy to protect biography subjects and wikipedia from defamation.
BLP is a policy to protect biography subjects and wikipedia from defamation.

Addressing critical information: Most "critical information" in wikipedia is
from a tiny minority. Some of these editors are cranks, some are well
meaning or mastermind schemers. In an article about an inanimate object,
like say pluto, wikipedia eventualism can have its way. Dead people don't
have careers, just legacy. Eventualism can discuss whether Abraham Lincoln
was gay all day. In a BLP article, the defamation per se ramifications put
the subject, editors, wikipedia and wikimedia foundation in potential legal
trouble. This requires immediatism, which is contrary to how most editors
act and feel about wikipedia. (Consensus building, etc.).

"Ideological agenda." Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor a tabloid newspaper,
nor a bunch of other things. Wikipedia is moving from concept to
authoritative. The more relevant wikipedia becomes, the more potential
damage from defamation in BLP articles. The stakes become higher. Expert
Editors are realizing the stakes are becoming high and becoming discontent
and flaming out (see WP:Expert Retention). Openness is what made wikipedia
reach critical mass and will be critical to its reaching fully authoritative
status in the future. The US is still a nation of laws (as much as we hate
them and those that create the laws) and we can't throw those out just
because they are inconsistent with a majority of wikipedian editors.

Personally, I find Kyra Phillips and the criticisms on her page amusing but
irrelevant. The criticisms are dangerous when seen from a libel perspective,
and BLP has to be used like a fist to keep it out of the article until it is
negative criticisms are carefully gone over with a fine toothed comb and
polishing cloth. My thoughts on Jeff Gannon are he probably is a prostitute
and there are certainly big problems with his white house access. Still,
claims of sexual impropriety are strong defamation per se, and need the fine
comb and polish cloth...and then again twice more for good measure.

BLP:When in doubt, keep it out.
BLP:When in doubt, keep it out.
BLP:When in doubt, keep it out.

...

Now I "threw the book" at Kyra Phillips as a sort of test case. While
NPOV:Undue is much much stronger, WP:V requires that editors with dubious
sourcing have the burden of proof in BLP instances to keep a dubious claim
in. It is much easier to attack a dubious source than dubious claims. WP:V
with WP:RS has much more of a yes or no factor than the NPOV:undue
Maybe/maybe not.

>* A man who posted nude pictures of himself on websites whose domains
>he registered advertising himself as a $200-an-hour gay prostitute can
> not be identified as a prostitute.
>
>

This related to [[Jeff Gannon]], and the potential defamation per se is
ugly:

   - Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted,
   convicted, or punished for crime; (
   http://www.chillingeffects.org/defamation/faq.cgi#QID726)
   - Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity.
   - Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession,
   trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in
   those respects that the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or
   by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or
   business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits;

I suppose we could even use the disease claim, since prostitutes are known
for likely having diseases. Claiming a guy is a prostitute nails the head of
defamation per se. WP:V isn't enough here if using primary sources, editors
better make sure this is TRUTH before allowing it in wikipedia as a fact.

The more "true" phrasing is to use the word alleged. Alleged prostitute is
much easier to prove true. Did the media at the time bring up allegations of
impropriety and prostitution? Sure did. Using wikipedia to say he IS a
prostitute? Potential libel, lets have a media source with a fact checking
department or a grand jury indictment/trial or a book publisher and author
sort that out. Using an op-ed piece in a primary source form to back up the
claim is dubious. A secondary source here is REQUIRED.

The "agenda" here is wikipedia CYA.

> * The Financial Times cannot be used as a source in an article about a
> journalist because they "report on finances issues" and thus are
> "unreliable" when it comes to other matters.
>
> This is related to Kyra Phillips

Field of view. Sources get more unreliable as they report on matters outside
their focus subject. While your surgeon is qualified to remove your gall
bladder, is he qualified to replace your auto transmission? Can an auto
mechanic remove your gall bladder? Now this analogy is specific to
defamation. Think of the surgeon as a potential BLP source, the gall bladder
as negative criticism and the body as the BLP subject. The auto mechanic
here is just a regular source, maybe even the same BLP source, your
transmission is negative criticism and the auto is a non BLP subject. If the
surgeon screws up your car, you are just likely out time, money and a means
of transportation. If the auto mechanic screws up your gall bladder surgery,
you may die. The point here is BLP articles have much higher stakes,
certainly not death itself, but death equivalent if they have no career.

This calls into play use of FT in a BLP article...use of FT may be fine in
any article, say Pluto...but a UK papers commentary of a US journalist may
be dubious.

Irrespective, the FT source use in the article wasn't criticism, more a
notable instance of stupidity regarding what Kyra Phillips said. It did not
back up claims of "conservative bias" or my assertion of possible bad
objectivity. It was just a stupid thing to say, and journalists make them on
rare occasions. The framing of the statement was used to support a "bias"
claim, which may be false light.

Personally, attacking FT as a source is a devil's advocate argument. I
certainly believe a UK paper can comment on a US journalist and do it
fairly, objectively, and not be a dubious source. There are much bigger
problems with the section/statements in general than claiming FT as a
dubious source. However, since it is much more defined on what a dubious
source is in policy, it is easy to chip away at the libel rocks using this
method.

* The Columbia Journalism Review is a reliable source.  A blog run by
> the Columbia Journalism Review on the website of the Columbia
> Journalism Review is not.
>
>

I will state I don't think the blog of CJR is a dubious source. I would
think by having the name CJR as part of the name of the blog, the reputation
and editorial oversight of the CJR journal extends to the blog. Another
brought up significant questions of the blogs oversight and self published
sources. Since those tests were generally unanswered, even though I strongly
don't agree, I still follow "when in doubt keep it out" regarding the
source. This is contrary to the way most editors are acting, but this method
of keeping out till proven reliable should be the standard, not the
exception.

* The New Republic, among other reputable, long-standing publications,
> cannot be used as a source because they are "too partisan".
>
>
 Field of view again. How far is the politics of a publication too far? Much
of this boils down is way too many articles using PRIMARY sources
 rather than secondary ones. Partisan magazines should be used in articles
discussing politics, not in biographies of journalists, authors, etc. This
is a fundamental wikipedia credibility problem. Using primary sources like
these brings up NPOV issues for the entire article. This also brings up
false light problems in BLP articles.

I think The New Republic and The Nation have a place in articles such as US
Political Newspapers, US Politics, Democrats and Republicans, but their use
in a biography of a journalist should be avoided.

Rob forgets to mention a more obvious case....Can Southern Voice, a gay
newspaper with a LGBT audience, be a reliable source for a BLP article? My
assertion is no way can a LGBT newspaper be assumed not to be far left and
too partisan/too advocacy journalism for a wikipedia source. There may be
perception that I have  an anti-homosexual agenda, which is false. I don't
find a church bulletin or "Christian newspaper" as an acceptable source
either. 501(3) non profits need careful scrutiny as well.

>* Partisan organizations and publications, even long-standing and
> reputable ones, cannot be used in an article at all, even to
> substantiate the fact that there is partisan criticism of the subject
> of the article.  I'm not taking about someone objecting to "John Doe
> did this bad thing", I'm talking about people objecting to the article
> saying "X, Y, and Z criticize John Doe, saying this thing he did may
> have been bad."
>

In this case I think Rob is misreading the talk discussion. I have never
objected to the use of a direct quote, however, I will still bring up use of
that quote versus NPOV:undue, and notability of the person making the
criticism. Once in direct quote form, that won't end discussion on its use.
In this case, there is no "X, Y, Z" more like just X. X is from the Poynter
institute, a journalistic education and ethics think tank. Quite qualified
to criticize a journalist, however, is one criticism enough about one
specific issue worthy of a biography article? How about when the critic is
not directly criticizing the biography subject, just news journalist in
general?

> In addition to well-intentioned people wildly misapplying BLP and RS,
> we may have handed a powerful new weapon to POV warriors, who wish to
> sanitize all the articles about their ideological fellow travelers.  A
> well-meaning user has created the "Libel Protection Unit", but this is
> the same person who thinks that you are libeling someone by quoting
> something said by the "unreliable" Financial Times, and among the
> people he's unwittingly recruited for his new group and have eagerly
> signed up are some notorious POV warriors and at least one certified
> troll.  I realize that what I'm writing may not show much good faith,
> but based on what I've seen from some of these folks and the
> statements I've noted above, I fear that this LPU will do much to
> remove legitimate material from the encyclopedia and do little to
> protect us from actual libel.  Some people have weighed in with
> sensible remarks, like Jmabel at [[Wikipedia talk:Libel-Protection
> Unit]], but I think more people should do so before this gets out of
> hand.
>

Just the nature and framing of this post should be insight into the
defamation potential and problems with Libel on Wikipedia. We obviously
don't worry about NPOV on mailing lists, but you can see without my
perspective, this post and thread has just generated a bunch of "yup yup"
within the metapedian perspective. In short, please don't shoot the
messenger. Concerns about this group getting out of control are unfounded, I
repeatedly am attempting to build consensus before action. All sorts of
people were invited to participate who have concerns about NPOV, Bias, BLP
and Libel...possible "POV warriors" and "trolls" too. Of the initial people
invited, I invited a "POV warrior" by the username of Gamaliel. Gamaliel has
made repeated reversions to pages to versions containing potential libelous
material rather than leaving it out when confronted with BLP policy. I fully
understand the nature and culture of eventualism, hence why I took a bit of
tea, put on the thinking cap and came up with a working group for Libel
issues. Still, there are no innocents here, including admitted acts of bad
faith. No attempts have been made to exclude anyone, the more eyeballs and
consensus the better.

Since this post, Jossi has renamed the unit BLP Patrol, [[WP:BLPP]]. Before
the group can act, defamation needs to be strictly defined on wikipedia.
Reliable sources have a much more strict definition and are one method I use
for bringing up potential libel issues if NPOV:Undue isn't obvious. There
are severe problems with [[WP:LIBEL]], wikimedia and the legal team, as well
as members of florida bar and wikipedia law project really need to get
involved with the discussion and crafting of [[WP:LIBEL]]. Experts and legal
advice are needed badly.

Action is needed yesterday. See [[WP:BLP]], [[WP:LIBEL]], [[WP:BLPP]].

Jason "Electrawn" Potkanski


body:
On 9/9/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 9, 2006, at 4:56 PM, geni wrote:
>
> >
> > That isn't a very nice way to talk about inclusionists.
>
> You're confusing DRV with VfU. VfU was the very nice page we used to
> have where deletions could be contested. DRV is what happened when
> the deletionists got mad that VFU was being used to give articles a
> "second chance," and so they overwhelmed all sense and made it so
> that you couldn't undelete an article on the grounds that the outcome
> was idiotic.
>

Ah no. VFU was traditionaly controled by process wonks who largely
managed to keep the deletionist/inclusionist wars elsewhere. The
inclusionists were understandible upset that from time to time a
school would somehow get deleted. Eventualy they managed to get
together in large enough  numbers to start deletion wars on VfU
although haveing to deal with the problem that they needed more than a
majority to get their way did slow them down. About this time the use
of wikipedia newspeak became manditory and the title was changed to
DRV. Thus we have today.

Isn't revisionist history fun?

--
geni


from_name: Akash Mehta

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Example of a user who should have been banned a long
	time ago

body:
There's a category/list for that? That should be AfD'd/prodded :) It
practically encourages activity leading to indef block by Jimbo, although I
can't think of anything that would warrant such attention besides other
sysops not noticing.

[snip]

> people end up on the "list of people banned by Jimbo"

[snip]


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: David Gerard

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Attempted mudslinging in subject lines

body:
Please take the time to change the subject line if responding - on
wikien-l it was a common trick for a long time for trolls to slander
people by putting an accusation right there in the subject line,
confident it would be spread every time the thread was continued, and
I would suggest it would be better for all (and possibly even rational
discussion on the actual subject, rather than one-note advocates
continuing the fine legacy of Bonaparte for whatever purpose as this
one took pain to) if you could all take care with the subject line.

- d.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] MWT for WP:BLPP (formerly How does living bio patrol
	actually work?)

body:
Ok. Actually, I'd appreciate if you could post that on [[WP:BLPP]], I
haven't had time. And the correct url is
http://draicone.googlepages.com/mwt-blpp-binsrc.zip for those without html
email clients (notice the + is omitted).

On 9/9/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 09/09/06, Akash Mehta <draicone at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I've made a few minor tweaks and built a prototype using the current MWT
> > code. See http://draicone.googlepages.com/mwt-blpp-binsrc.zip<
> http://draicone.googlepages.com/mwt-blpp-bin+src.zip>
> > (including binaries and source, as you may have guessed by now) for the
> > win32 version. Should work in Windows98+. If someone wants to port this
> to
> > Java, go ahead. I think Simeon / TehKewl1 got it running under WINE,
> Linux
> > users can try that.
>
>
> If it works under current Wine, that'll be excellent :-) I'll try it
> under 0.9.20 on Ubuntu Dapper and let you (and the list and WP:BLPP)
> know how it goes.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] How does living bio patrol actually work?

body:
On 09/09/06, Akash Mehta <draicone at gmail.com> wrote:

>    - Devs are at work on software assistance and monitoring tools.
> Is that supposed to include me? I suppose I'll just continue hacking each
> consecutive version of MWT to work for BLPP. Let me know how you found the
> last version, as Mike recompiled the next release (0.7.6 rc3) last night and
> I can hack that to work with BLPP as well.

Yes, your hacked version of MWT was what I meant there (not that I've
tried it yet). And others' suggestions and help.

- d.


body:
On 09/09/06, Amgine <amgine at saewyc.net> wrote:

> For these and other reasons, en.wp should develop policy limiting
> living persons articles to primary career facts and academic
> achievements, current positions held or endeavors, and minimal
> personal facts. By presenting a minimal set of biographic facts the
> community can circumvent a large number of internal and external
> conflicts, whilst avoiding maintenance issues and keeping the
> articles relevant until such time as the subjects may be viewed in
> historical context.

And, of course, [[WP:LIVING]] has pretty much from its creation said
what you're asking for here: facts in the article need to be relevant
to the subject's notability.

(removed developers from the cc:, as I can't see them caring about an
editorial policy issue)

- d.


body:
On 09/09/06, Akash Mehta <draicone at gmail.com> wrote:

> Then... censor subject lines..?

In practice, it's most workable if the people on a list are aware of
it and don't put up with it. Then the action needed from the moderator
is minimised.

- d.


from_name: Mark Gallagher

subject: [WikiEN-l] Template usage?

body:
G'day Akash,

[Please don't top-post]

> Some day we'll need to come up with a comprehensive list of all those
> working on CVU / RC patrol and together switch all the policies so
> that vandals no longer know the location of AIV :) I remember when

CVU is not as important as it thinks it is, nor is it as successful[0]
as it ought to have been.  The emphasis some people place on CVU, as if
it's all there is to vandalism cleanup efforts, is irksome.

> someone put hundreds of instances of the nazi symbol on an article and
> it took half an hour till somebody figured out how to use the
> index.php?target=...&action=edit format to get rid of it, and after
> various accounts vandalised with the same vandalism, yet another
> sockpuppet applied for the page to be semi protected and succeeded!

I think posts like this one, considering both your suggestion at top
(however tongue-in-check you intended it) and the story you relate here
show just why CVU, if it must exist at all, needs a swift kick in the butt.

[0] Depending on how you define it.  If you don't care about newbies
     bitten, games of Chinese Whispers enjoyed, Cluey people pissed off,
     etc., CVU is wonderful.

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse


body:
But its also a legal issue, because those who own the copyright on copyvio
images can take legal action, and have certainly tried in the past
([[WP:OFFICE]] is here for a reason!).

On 9/9/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> On 9/8/06, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 9/8/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > > On 9/7/06, Ben McIlwain <cydeweys at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > It sounds like OrphanBot may need a slight tweak to keep
> > > > track of how many unsources images a user is uploading, and then
> start
> > > > raising red flags if it exceeds a certain number.
> > >
> > > I just wish the bot would stop telling me that the images Ive uploaded
> > > that dont have a known source (and were released under Sharealike 1.0
> > > which doesnt require a source) are candidates for deletion.
> >
> > We don't allow unsourced images of any sort on Wikipedia.  That's as
> > much a moral issue as a legal one.
> >
> It's not a legal issue at all.  It's a moral issue in that it forces
> people to identify themselves in order to contribute images to the
> encyclopedia.
>
> I don't know about your morality, but my morality dictates that I
> *not* reveal the identity of someone who creates an image and asks not
> to be identified.
>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
I suppose if the uploader's grandmother (as the author) doesn't want to be
identified, but the user is in good stead and, while not being able to prove
it isnt a copyvio, there is no evidence to the contrary, we need to rethink
it. The problem is we can't assume there's no scope for legal action from
the real copyright owner. Any comments on this?

On 9/9/06, Akash Mehta <draicone at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But its also a legal issue, because those who own the copyright on copyvio
> images can take legal action, and have certainly tried in the past
> ([[WP:OFFICE]] is here for a reason!).
>
>
> On 9/9/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 9/8/06, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 9/8/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > > > On 9/7/06, Ben McIlwain <cydeweys at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > It sounds like OrphanBot may need a slight tweak to keep
> > > > > track of how many unsources images a user is uploading, and then
> > start
> > > > > raising red flags if it exceeds a certain number.
> > > >
> > > > I just wish the bot would stop telling me that the images Ive
> > uploaded
> > > > that dont have a known source (and were released under Sharealike
> > 1.0
> > > > which doesnt require a source) are candidates for deletion.
> > >
> > > We don't allow unsourced images of any sort on Wikipedia.  That's as
> > > much a moral issue as a legal one.
> > >
> > It's not a legal issue at all.  It's a moral issue in that it forces
> > people to identify themselves in order to contribute images to the
> > encyclopedia.
> >
> > I don't know about your morality, but my morality dictates that I
> > *not* reveal the identity of someone who creates an image and asks not
> > to be identified.
> >
> > Anthony
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: Rory Stolzenberg

subject: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 38, Issue 42

body:
If there's an image that the uploader who is in good standing says was
created by him (or his grandmother) that appears to be a homemade image and
we have no reason to think that he didn't take it, then we wouldn't delete
it.

On 9/9/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Rory Stolzenberg stated for the record:
>
> > We have to assume good faith in image uploads unless there's a reason to
> do
> > otherwise.  If we find the image on the internet saying it's copyrighted
> > with all rights reserved, then we'd delete it, or if every other of the
> > user's 200 images were proved to be copyvios, we'd delete it, but if we
> have
> > no evidence, we don't delete it.
>
> On the contrary, policy (as well as Jimbo) states an image without
> provenance shall be deleted.
>
> - --
> Sean Barrett     | I'm tired of getting the fuzzy
> sean at epoptic.com | end of the lollipop. --Sugar Kane
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD4DBQFFA4ALMAt1wyd9d+URAod0AJijq+hkpwsycTIQSwWwlp4c2vVWAJ4ztF7a
> pUG6q5mM3V24dHfHO8x3Yg==
> =JZbA
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Example of a user who should have been banned a long
 time ago

body:
G'day Akash,

[top-posting, context fixed]

> Jimbo Wales wrote: [snip]
>> people end up on the "list of people banned by Jimbo"
> There's a category/list for that? That should be AfD'd/prodded :) It
> practically encourages activity leading to indef block by Jimbo,
although I
> can't think of anything that would warrant such attention besides
> other sysops not noticing.

No, there isn't a category/list for that (well, there might be, but
that's not what Jimmy meant).  The essential problem with J Wales
blocking someone, as Jimmy himself pointed out in the bit you snipped,
is that it's not treated as a standard block, and can invite hysteria
from other admins and in extreme cases, the press.

People look at it and say, "Wikipedia's founder himself blocked someone!
  That's an unusual situation.  What sort of message should we take from
this?  How may we better serve him?"

This would be distressing for any number of reasons, not least that
having people latch onto you like that can be very embarrassing if
you're not the sort of person who likes being latched onto.

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse


body:
On 09/09/06, Akash Mehta <draicone at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, but you could build it into GNU mailman. I'm sure the language its
> written in has some sort of str_replace() / replace() function.

Nah, too much technology (mechanism) for a social problem (policy). We
could always build better people ...

-d .


subject: [WikiEN-l] Grandmother copyrighted anonymous works

body:
On 09/09/06, Akash Mehta <draicone at gmail.com> wrote:

> I believe its assumed that you are either the owner of the copyright as
> uploader (in which case you would tag the image as such) or the owner of the
> copyright is listed (unless it is in the public domain, although it should
> be listed anyway), as the author may be different from the copyright owner
> (professional photographers working for a business?).

Well, yeah. Closest I've come to this is e.g. uploading an image by
[[:en:User:Arkady Rose]] (my girlfriend) to Commons because she can't
be bothered creating Yet Another Login. I uploaded it myself and said
it was by her and put there under copyleft-self (dual GFDL and
CC-by-sa) with her permission. If some hardworking wikilawyer started
claiming the image must therefore be deleted as a risk to the project
(what if EVERYONE did this?) then I fear my legendary patience and
calm might slip.

- d.


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-09-10

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

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

Passed 412 of 429 tests (96.04%) FAILED!


from_name: Stephen Bain

body:
On 9/9/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> How do you verify the license?  If I put my grandmother's name as
> author are you going to look up her phone number and call her or
> something?  Part of the whole point is that the people who made these
> images don't want to be bothered by this crap.

...

> Part of me thinks the best solution is to just create a sockpuppet for
> each person and upload the images under that, claiming authorship on
> them.  Another part of me thinks I should make some trivial, yet
> copyrightable, modification to the work, claim authorship of the
> derivative, and upload them with myself as author.  Yet another part
> of me thinks I should just turn off the notification and let y'all
> delete the damn images, because it's not worth bothering with.
>
> So far I've just been removing the tags, mentioning that the source is
> anonymous, and I think most of the images have survived.

If the original author doesn't care about attribution, or their rights
as photographer, or what happens to the image, then get them to assign
the copyright to someone else in a deed. Then the other person can do
whatever they want with the image, since they own the copyright.

Of course IANAL, that's just a suggestion etc.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


subject: [Foundation-l] Clickable images

body:
On 10/09/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you for selective snipping, in this way a solution to your long
> argument was removed. To recapitulate, we can have options for under the
> left mouse click. Think solutions please.

I don't see [[:en:mystery meat navigation]] or requiring the user to
have a computer with a mouse - let alone a specifically two or more
button mouse - as a likely solution to anything for Wikimedia or
MediaWiki.

I'm still after the one-sentence statements of the original poster's
problem and suggested solutions.

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] Clickable images


subject: [Foundation-l] Clickable images

body:
Hoi,
Thank you for selective snipping, in this way a solution to your long
argument was removed. To recapitulate, we can have options for under the
left mouse click. Think solutions please.
Thanks,
   GerardM

Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 9/9/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> By the way if anything your argument
>> is an argument against images that can not be freely displayed and copied.
>>
>
> A requirement for attribution is not a prohibition against free use
> and redistribution.
>
> Attribution, by itself, is a basic activity which any honest and
> ethical distributor will be careful to perform with due care even when
> not required to by copyright licenses.
>
> So long as the default state of copyright is all rights reserved
> mandatory attribution is a fundamental requirement for any license
> which attempts to use copyright to prevent content from being removed
> from the commons. If the attribution and at least basic licensing
> information are not brought along with the work it becomes far too
> likely that the information will be lost and the work will fall out of
> availability to the public.
>
> The attribution and licensing data provided one click away already
> causes us a little resistance from some photographers who would rather
> see a distracting by-line attached to every illustration of theirs.
> What we do today is uniform on all of our pages (with a few
> exceptions, for example the frwiki main page), and is consistent with
> our behavior for text. It is likely the minimal acceptable thing we
> can do both from both the perspective of license conformance and from
> the perspective of behaving honestly. Hiding the attribution behind
> multiclick secret handshakes just isn't going to fly.
>
> I think it is important that we keep any discussion centered on the
> actual problem: Our image behavior is surprising when we use images as
> parts of navigational elements.  This isn't an issue over free
> content, and any attempt to turn the discussion into a crusade to
> establish a new (and ultimately self defeating) definition of free
> content is just going to be a waste of all our time.
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Clickable images


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Foundation-l] Clickable images

body:
On 9/9/06, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I think we all saw them. Clickable images.

Er, yes, however it is not clear to me if you're referring to any new
technical feature? I'm only familiar with the [[Template:Click]] hack
used on the English Wikipedia, which has been around since December
2005 and does not work in all browsers. The relevant Bugzilla entry is
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=539
and there is no indication that it has been fixed. Am I missing
something? If you're referring to [[Template:Click]], I advise against
using it for compatibility reasons. After all, clickable images have
been supported in web browsers for a while ;-); resorting to CSS hacks
to implement them seems barely justifiable.

There's been a lot of discussion already about how navigational images
could be implemented while preserving image credit. The best strategy
I've seen would be to have an extension, Special:Mediacredits, which,
called with a page title as a parameter, would transclude all the
description pages of the images and other media used on that page. A
page-dependent link to the Special:Imagecredits page would then be
inserted into the sidebar and/or page footer.

I don't think images that function as links to other pages necessarily
represent a usability problem. After all, thumbnails normally also
have a little "zoom" icon, which creates the expectation that clicking
the image gives a larger version (which it does). Navigational images
do not have this "zoom" icon, so the reader expectation is more likely
to be that they take you to another page, which, however, they
currently do not.

So I think the current use of images on the Main Pages, in infoboxes,
etc. in fact represents a usability problem that could be addressed
with a clean implementation of images as links. In fact, it's
especially bad on the English Wikipedia, where clicking a frontpage
photo like the Space Shuttle not only takes me to an image description
page, it also shows me a complex warning:

 This image has been temporarily uploaded as a crop from Image:STS-115
 Launch.jpg so that its subject can be easily visible at a thumb scale
while on the
 Main Page. For licensing information, please view the main image description.
 Images on the main page are protected due to their high visibility.
Please discuss
 any necessary changes on the discussion page. Administrators: please speedy
 delete this file once it is definitely off the Main Page.

Thousands of readers see confusing messages like this when they expect
to see articles. That cannot be a good thing.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik


subject: [Foundation-l] Clickable images


body:
On 10/09/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:

> Uploading it? Sure... I thought we already allowed .blend files, but
> it appears that we do not.
> But since the browsers can't view it... whats the point?

Putting it on Commons, presumably. Which is full of Vorbis and Theora
which requires a software guide.

- d.


body:
Michael Tiemann and the Blender folks support the use of COLLADA as a
standard 3D format on Wikipedia:

http://www.blendernation.com/2006/09/08/proposal-for-a-standard-3d-format-on-wikipedia/

The extension is .dae. Is there a good reason not to do this?
--
Peace & Love,
Erik


from_name: Ragib Hasan

subject:
[Foundation-l] Hi, Jimmy Wales,
	Is there inspectors to investigate admins?

body:
On 9/10/06, Peter Rocky7 <freudianjungianp at hotmail.com> wrote:
> In Japanese Wikipedia all admins seemes to be anti-Japanese cruel Korean
> fascists. They cannot be Japanese characteristically. It is the fact that in
> Korea anti-Japanese cruel Korean fascists have been oppressing pro-Japanese
> people since 2000.
>
> Japanese are peaceful and generous, but Koreans are aggressive and sly (at
> least since 1945).
>

Time to apply Godwin's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law ) here?


body:
On 9/10/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> Uploading it? Sure... I thought we already allowed .blend files, but
> it appears that we do not.
>
> But since the browsers can't view it... whats the point?

I presume .dea files would mostly be uploaded in conjunction with
rendered animations and images and thereby allow people to creative
derivative works (re-rendering with a different perspective, modifying
the model, using it in different contexts, etc.). "Use the source,
Luke." ;-)
--
Peace & Love,
Erik


from_name: Peter Rocky7

body:
Greetings

I am [[User:Rocky7]].

Is there inspectors to investigate the behaviors of all admins in English
Wikipedia?

In Japanese Wikipedia there is no inspectors to investigate whether the
behaviors of admins are right or not, so almost Japanese Wikipedians cannot
trust admins at all. And it seems very clear that admins abuse sockpuppets
terribly unfairly. They have been blocking superior Wikipedians one after
another. They would have done out of jealousy, inferiority complex, and/or
anti-Japanese hate.

In Japanese Wikipedia all admins seemes to be anti-Japanese cruel Korean
fascists. They cannot be Japanese characteristically. It is the fact that in
Korea anti-Japanese cruel Korean fascists have been oppressing pro-Japanese
people since 2000.

Japanese are peaceful and generous, but Koreans are aggressive and sly (at
least since 1945).

Why have the server of Japanese Wikipedia been set on Korea? Very heavy and
terribly unfair!

Who have left the adminships of Japanese Wikipedia to sly anti-Japanese
Koreans who pretend to be Japanese?

The relation between Japanese and Koreans is the same as that between
Israeli Jews and (Palestinian) Arabs.

Is there the board of inspectors to investigate the behaviours of all admins
in English Wikipedia?
If not, please create it. Now!
As far as admin's vandalism abusing ordinary Wikipedians is left, it is
extremely obvious that there is no use preventing anons from creating new
pages.  The prank like that of [[Siegenthaler Sr]] cannot be settled unless
admins be re-elected and trusted.

As long as general Wikipedians cannot respect admins, it's the worst method
to set a limit to releasing the newest version of the article. I don't know
why the admins of Deutche Wikipedia can take such a silly countermeasure.

After all, The Problem of Wikipedia is evidently the Problem of Admins.

Do you understand?

I hope that there would be wise admins here who can think and act logically
and help build the ideal of Jimmy Wales.

Thank you.

Rocky7

_________________________________________________________________
Get the new Windows Live Messenger!
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline


from_name: James Hare

body:
Too early.

The idea that we have certain Wikipedias with highly rouge admins is
indicative that we need to start getting focussed on an international,
interlingual community of responsible people to infiltrate these bad
Wikipedias and teach them right from wrong!

On 9/10/06, Ragib Hasan <ragibhasan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/10/06, Peter Rocky7 <freudianjungianp at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In Japanese Wikipedia all admins seemes to be anti-Japanese cruel Korean
> > fascists. They cannot be Japanese characteristically. It is the fact
> that in
> > Korea anti-Japanese cruel Korean fascists have been oppressing
> pro-Japanese
> > people since 2000.
> >
> > Japanese are peaceful and generous, but Koreans are aggressive and sly
> (at
> > least since 1945).
> >
>
>
> Time to apply Godwin's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law )
> here?
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Clickable images

body:
On 9/10/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> If the current way of providing attribution does not work because of a
> need to be innovative than we need to change our way in which we
> attribute. Currently we do attribute by having a "click through" to the
> image page. We could have in a similar way as we currently do the
> citations have footnotes with pictures. These footnotes would consist of
> a name and a license identification and a link to the image page. I
> would even be in favour of having a separate tab with the citations
> because both citations and other comments detract from reading the article.

All I can think of is 50 pages of attribution at the bottom of an
article, including lovely names like "throbbing monster cock"... if
images are attributed with footnotes it would obviously make sense to
do the same for text...

At hacking days I suggested a 'credits' page as a possible use for
multiple 'talk' namespaces....  So sure, I agree that a credits page
of sorts might make sense... but thats a bigger issue than clickable
images.

> Why would it infuriate you? There are many applications that support
> these kind of things. Denying this is equally infuriating because it
> prevents you in thinking what you can do.

Because it's not acceptable for my browser to massively change its
behavior in strange and surprising ways just because I've navigated
over to another website.

> Browser compatibility .. sure
> they are .. one of the best things about the automatic update procedures
> of Firefox and Internet Exlorer is that they replace the old versions
> and thereby remove the need to support many old incompatible browsers.
> People that do not have a mouse or have a text only browser have a big
> problem on the web. Our software could do much better in supporting the
> visually impaired if we spend effort in doing so. Preventing the use of
> pictures as a navigational aid is not the best way, it is ducking that
> problem.

You're creating a false dichotomy. We have a fair degree of
accessability not because we've avoided images for navigation (in
fact, we have many images for navigation) but because we've not
installed bizarre hacks like using javascript to rework the operation
of the mouse buttons.

The need to support older browsers is long from dead. ... this is
perhaps becoming too much technical trivia for foundation-l.

> I had a look, I think it is an effort but I think it clutters the total
> image of the page up. I would prefer to use part of what you have done
> there and link it to a footnote. Oh, and nobody having implemented it
> when you proposed something ? That is the norm not the exception.

And link what to a footnote?  The image? if you link the image to a
footnote you are effectively back to the same counterintutive behavior
we have today... or do you mean the text under the image?  ... if you
mean the text what is the advantage of using the footnote? as the text
would still clutter the page.

My comment on it not being implemented was intended to balance my
statement the no one objected (i.e. they did not find it too
compelling either).  I don't believe that I understand the intention
of your comment...


subject: [Foundation-l] Clickable images


body:
Just like Eloquence stated in his platform, we need to make a big list of
these Best Practices so we can figure out what's best, so we "don't have to
re-invent the wheel" over and over again.

Let's get started on that. Effeietsanders here started it off by telling us
the doubleplusgood practice of the Dutch Wikipedia.

Perhaps this page of best practices can be a series of pages on Meta.

On 9/10/06, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If your question can be shortened to "are the admins controlled" the
> answer is YES! To be exact, by the comunity. The community can appoint
> and send away admins, and can control them.
>
> further there is at the dutch wikipedia (and we are somehow weird,
> fyi) a community reprepresentative that has access to the
> sysop-mailinglist and could shout alarm if the admins were plotting
> something bad. Afaik he has never had to use his access to shout
> alarm, although he reads almost everything on-list.
>
>
> @domas: I started earlier, here: "In Japanese Wikipedia all admins
> seemes to be anti-Japanese cruel Korean fascists." ;-)
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2006/9/10, Peter Rocky7 <freudianjungianp at hotmail.com>:
> > Greetings
> >
> > I am [[User:Rocky7]].
> >
> > Is there inspectors to investigate the behaviors of all admins in
> English
> > Wikipedia?
> >
> > In Japanese Wikipedia there is no inspectors to investigate whether the
> > behaviors of admins are right or not, so almost Japanese Wikipedians
> cannot
> > trust admins at all. And it seems very clear that admins abuse
> sockpuppets
> > terribly unfairly. They have been blocking superior Wikipedians one
> after
> > another. They would have done out of jealousy, inferiority complex,
> and/or
> > anti-Japanese hate.
> >
> > In Japanese Wikipedia all admins seemes to be anti-Japanese cruel Korean
> > fascists. They cannot be Japanese characteristically. It is the fact
> that in
> > Korea anti-Japanese cruel Korean fascists have been oppressing
> pro-Japanese
> > people since 2000.
> >
> > Japanese are peaceful and generous, but Koreans are aggressive and sly
> (at
> > least since 1945).
> >
> > Why have the server of Japanese Wikipedia been set on Korea? Very heavy
> and
> > terribly unfair!
> >
> > Who have left the adminships of Japanese Wikipedia to sly anti-Japanese
> > Koreans who pretend to be Japanese?
> >
> > The relation between Japanese and Koreans is the same as that between
> > Israeli Jews and (Palestinian) Arabs.
> >
> > Is there the board of inspectors to investigate the behaviours of all
> admins
> > in English Wikipedia?
> > If not, please create it. Now!
> > As far as admin's vandalism abusing ordinary Wikipedians is left, it is
> > extremely obvious that there is no use preventing anons from creating
> new
> > pages.  The prank like that of [[Siegenthaler Sr]] cannot be settled
> unless
> > admins be re-elected and trusted.
> >
> > As long as general Wikipedians cannot respect admins, it's the worst
> method
> > to set a limit to releasing the newest version of the article. I don't
> know
> > why the admins of Deutche Wikipedia can take such a silly
> countermeasure.
> >
> > After all, The Problem of Wikipedia is evidently the Problem of Admins.
> >
> > Do you understand?
> >
> > I hope that there would be wise admins here who can think and act
> logically
> > and help build the ideal of Jimmy Wales.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Rocky7
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get the new Windows Live Messenger!
> >
> http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
Ok, thanks for clarifying that. In that case, what if Jimbo just asks
another sysop to block? There are always sysops on IRC when I'm on...

On 9/9/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>
>
> G'day Akash,
>
> [top-posting, context fixed]
>
> > Jimbo Wales wrote: [snip]
> >> people end up on the "list of people banned by Jimbo"
> > There's a category/list for that? That should be AfD'd/prodded :) It
> > practically encourages activity leading to indef block by Jimbo,
> although I
> > can't think of anything that would warrant such attention besides
> > other sysops not noticing.
>
> No, there isn't a category/list for that (well, there might be, but
> that's not what Jimmy meant).  The essential problem with J Wales
> blocking someone, as Jimmy himself pointed out in the bit you snipped,
> is that it's not treated as a standard block, and can invite hysteria
> from other admins and in extreme cases, the press.
>
> People look at it and say, "Wikipedia's founder himself blocked someone!
>   That's an unusual situation.  What sort of message should we take from
> this?  How may we better serve him?"
>
> This would be distressing for any number of reasons, not least that
> having people latch onto you like that can be very embarrassing if
> you're not the sort of person who likes being latched onto.
>
>
> --
> Mark Gallagher
> "What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
> - Danger Mouse
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
   - Devs are at work on software assistance and monitoring tools.
Is that supposed to include me? I suppose I'll just continue hacking each
consecutive version of MWT to work for BLPP. Let me know how you found the
last version, as Mike recompiled the next release (0.7.6 rc3) last night and
I can hack that to work with BLPP as well.

On 9/10/06, Jason Potkanski <electrawn at electrawn.com> wrote:
>
> >From wikipedia talk @ WP:BLPP
> State of BLP Patrol: Week ending Sep 9th
>
> Done:
>
>    - Consensus reached that group will only focus on BLP articles, Group
>    Renamed to BLP Patrol.
>
>
>    - Critical Mass reached. Consensus reached simply that this group
>    should exist.
>
>
>    - Consensus seems to be to leave NPOV:Undue Weight issues up to local
>    editor consensus?
>
> To Do:
>
>    - Devs are at work on software assistance and monitoring tools.
>
>
>    - Alter IRC Bots and/or irc channels for active monitoring.
>
>
>    - Develop templates in support of BLPP.
>
>
>    - (Low)Develop userbox/category for BLPP wikipedians.
>
>
>    - (High)Agree on what specific Libel patrol will target. Current
>    proposal is to focus on USA definition of Defamation per se.
>
>
>    - (High)WP:LIBEL </wiki/WP:LIBEL> is way to short to be an effective
>    policy.
>
>
>    - Agree on methods to minimize resulting edit wars.
>
>
>    - Agree on methods for dealing with editors who insist on violating
>    BLP and Libel policies.
>
>
>    - (Low)Elect a Project Manager. I,
> User:Electrawn</wiki/User:Electrawn>,
>    offer myself to manage as the original creator. If anyone else feels
> they
>    are better qualified, I will bow to someone more experienced.
>
> I may have missed somethings for the todo or done, add below.
> Electrawn</wiki/User:Electrawn>05:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
> "Managing the project" can be re-termed "herding particularly stroppy
> cats" ;-) The main reason Wikipedia is so keen on consensus is that it's
> less headaches. If we can agree on obvious things that will help
> immediately
> (simple checking of as many living bio edits as possible), then more
> difficult things can wait for consensus to shake them out. - David
> Gerard</wiki/User:David_Gerard>12:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)  Yup,
> I'm herding them in from Wiki-en. There are many different directions
> various folks are taking from technical to process to policy to active
> patrollers. I am a big fan of Divide and Conquer. :)
> Electrawn</wiki/User:Electrawn>20:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)  -Jason
> "Electrawn" Potkanski
>
> I get asked this by the press a lot. So I thought I'd come here and
> > ask how it actually works.
> >
> > 1. What is the actual process?
> > 2. How are new living bios spotted?
> > 3. Who watches edits in them, on what sort of schedule?
> >
> > And 4. the big one:
> >
> > Is there anything that can be done to make the living bio patrolling
> > volunteers' work easier and more efficient? What magical software
> > features would you like? Is there anything that some as-yet-unwritten
> > bot software could do to assist?
> >
> > I'd love to be able to answer "we have a volunteer patrol who look out
> > for any rubbish going in living biographies. We're not perfect but I
> > think we do pretty well" and be able to give more detail if they ask
> > ;-)
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Let alone all subsequent replies.

But honestly, 'stop screwing up deletions in the first place' is the perfect
solution, its just impossible to implement. I say for every controversial
AfD closure or prod, 3 sysops have to take a call and article is only
deleted if 2 of 3 vote delete.

On 9/10/06, maru dubshinki <marudubshinki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/9/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 09/09/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 9/9/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_September_7#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FEsoteric_programming_languages
> >
> > > Stop screwing up deletions in the first place?
> >
> >
> > You're on your way to setting a new record for clear helpfulness in
> > your responses.
> >
> >
> > - d.
>
> Ah, but you already set it for your original message.
>
> ~maru
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Then... censor subject lines..?

On 9/10/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Please take the time to change the subject line if responding - on
> wikien-l it was a common trick for a long time for trolls to slander
> people by putting an accusation right there in the subject line,
> confident it would be spread every time the thread was continued, and
> I would suggest it would be better for all (and possibly even rational
> discussion on the actual subject, rather than one-note advocates
> continuing the fine legacy of Bonaparte for whatever purpose as this
> one took pain to) if you could all take care with the subject line.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


body:
I believe its assumed that you are either the owner of the copyright as
uploader (in which case you would tag the image as such) or the owner of the
copyright is listed (unless it is in the public domain, although it should
be listed anyway), as the author may be different from the copyright owner
(professional photographers working for a business?).

On 9/10/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> On 9/9/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> > If the original author doesn't care about attribution, or their rights
> > as photographer, or what happens to the image, then get them to assign
> > the copyright to someone else in a deed. Then the other person can do
> > whatever they want with the image, since they own the copyright.
> >
> Copyright assignment might work.  But is the listed source supposed to
> be the author or the copyright holder?
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Yes, but you could build it into GNU mailman. I'm sure the language its
written in has some sort of str_replace() / replace() function.

On 9/10/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 09/09/06, Akash Mehta <draicone at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Then... censor subject lines..?
>
>
> In practice, it's most workable if the people on a list are aware of
> it and don't put up with it. Then the action needed from the moderator
> is minimised.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Template usage?

body:
Well...

> CVU is not as important as it thinks it is, nor is it as successful[0]
> as it ought to have been.  The emphasis some people place on CVU, as if
> it's all there is to vandalism cleanup efforts, is irksome.

Its important to note that CVU encourages people to join the effort,
although it is pointless beyond that. Most people who do a lot of
vandalism reversion do so using tools they find at CVU etc.

> I think posts like this one, considering both your suggestion at top
> (however tongue-in-check you intended it) and the story you relate here
> show just why CVU, if it must exist at all, needs a swift kick in the butt.

If you mean reforming the whole CVU thing, what did you have in mind?


from_name: John McC

subject: [Foundation-l] Enabling import from en.wp to en.wb

body:
Hi,

I'm curious why the import function is not currently
enabled from between these two projects.

en.wikipedia has a strictly enforced policy of
deleting articles with "how-to" materials, and/or
removing sections of articles containing this sort of
information. See, for example, this category:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_containing_how-to_sections

I also remember seeing quite a few articles on the AfD
pages which were decided as "Delete/transwiki to
wikibooks", but don't seem to have shown up on the
transwiki log at wikibooks (though some are simply
copied directly to a main namespace location).

The current system just seems broken, for several
reasons:

1) Many articles that *are* transwikied end up being
moved without edit histories, and in one case I had to
get a WP admin to undelete a series of articles and
provide the histories.

2) We (as in the wikibooks admin staff) have no idea
if new modules (i.e., books or chapters) are
transwikied or not. We can often make a good guess if
a new module has a million red links in it, but even
so this doesn't necessarily tell us where it came
from.

3) The current copy/paste method is just unwieldy and
time consuming. Is there any real reason the import
function shouldn't be enabled (I've used it on
wikiversity, and it's quite graceful and easy to use).

4) Many of the articles that are marked as having
how-to sections contain only a slice of information
about a topic that might be part of a larger text, and
stubs just aren't very appropriate to the structure of
wikibooks. For example, I recently transwikied
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_ion_battery from
wikipedia, then placed it in an otherwise empty book
called Battery Power (
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Battery_Power ). To
provide structure for filling out the book, it would
be nice to be able to transwiki related articles (see
table of contents of the book), which may or may not
currently contain how-to information, in order to have
something to build from. (The book could be useful for
emergency preparedness, energy independence,
electronics, etc.). This would be much easier to do
using the import tool.

I'm curious whether there's any strong arguments
against doing this, or if not, perhaps it could be
enabled?

-Johnny

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


from_name: Amgine

body:
On 10-Sep-06, at 5:57 AM, David Gerard wrote:

> On 10/09/06, Amgine <amgine at saewyc.net> wrote:
>
>>> And, of course, [[WP:LIVING]] has pretty much from its creation said
>>> what you're asking for here: facts in the article need to be
>>> relevant
>>> to the subject's notability.
>
>> No, actually.
>> To give an example of what I mean:
>> [[Tom DeLay]]
>
>
> Then that's an example of an existing policy not being followed. I
> don't see that adding more policy will make it be followed more. (c.f.
> [[m:Instruction creep]].)
>
> I suggest that one needs to convince people that (a) this policy is a
> good idea (b) to do the hard work to make sure it's followed and
> *reasonably easy* to follow. I think we have (a), we're working on
> (b).

Well, that particular example was rather extreme, but so far as I can
tell the vast majority of [[Tom DeLay]] would still be accepted under
[[WP:LIVING]]. And with all due respect to Mr Wales's opinion,
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a library of full human
biographies (which might possibly be accepted under Wikibooks.)

Perhaps [[WP:LIVING]] could be altered to provide specific guidelines
for notability (such as the Florida Public Persons judicial test, as
previously suggested) as well as criteria for maximum information to
be included. No BLP needs to have blow-by-blow, week-by-week,
examinations of every possible legal or publicity scandal. Court
decisions, indictments, or other publicly verifiable (NOT newspaper
reporting) should certainly be includable, but "politician was
visited by lobbyist So-and-so who was later indicted for corruption"
is clearly innuendo and irrelevant.

I don't think you have clear enough guidelines to reach (b).

Amgine

-------------- next part --------------


from_name: Jimmy Wales

body:
Amgine wrote:
>>> For these and other reasons, en.wp should develop policy limiting
>>> living persons articles to primary career facts and academic
>>> achievements, current positions held or endeavors, and minimal
>>> personal facts. By presenting a minimal set of biographic facts the
>>> community can circumvent a large number of internal and external
>>> conflicts, whilst avoiding maintenance issues and keeping the
>>> articles relevant until such time as the subjects may be viewed in
>>> historical context.

I think that way of putting it seems a bit extreme.  In the example
under discussion [[Tom Delay]], it seems pretty clear that the article
is much stronger due to the inclusion of much more than some minimal set
of facts.

I say this despite the rather obvious "hatchet job" nature of the bio
there at this moment.  This is one of the worst political bios I have
seen in a long time in Wikipedia.

Tom Delay suffers from the problem of being unpopular with both the left
and the right.

--Jimbo


from_name: Anthony

body:
On 9/9/06, Rory Stolzenberg <rory096 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/9/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 9/9/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > If the original author doesn't care about attribution, or their rights
> > > as photographer, or what happens to the image, then get them to assign
> > > the copyright to someone else in a deed. Then the other person can do
> > > whatever they want with the image, since they own the copyright.
> > >
> > Copyright assignment might work.  But is the listed source supposed to
> > be the author or the copyright holder?

> Usually it's both since they're one and the same, but we actually want the
> copyright holder.  It doesn't matter to us who took it, only who owns it,
> since that's who would be using the license that we have to know. Same with
> fair use images; we want to know the copyright holder, not some random
> website with the image (though that is helpful if it says who the copyright
> owner is).

I guess that sounds like a reasonable request, then.  After all, one
might need to contact the copyright holder in order to ask them for a
different license (by-sa instead of GFDL, GPL instead of by-sa, etc).

I'll have to think of the best way to accomplish this if I want to go
that route.

Anthony


from_name: valdelli at bluemail.ch

body:
In Wikipedia no people control other people because Wikipedia is
collaborative.

I know that people who write something like I have read in your
email should make a big effort to understand Wikipedia's philosophy
but Wikipedia accepts also "stupid" criticism.

I think you should start from ABC... a good first step is to read
this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette it could be
helpful also for your inner growth.

Bye

Ilario

----Messaggio originale----
Da: freudianjungianp at hotmail.com
Data: 10.09.06 10.43
A: <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
Oggetto: [Foundation-l] Hi, Jimmy Wales,	Is there inspectors to
investigate admins?

Greetings

I am [[User:Rocky7]].

Is there inspectors to investigate the behaviors of all admins in
English
Wikipedia?

In Japanese Wikipedia there is no inspectors to investigate whether
the
behaviors of admins are right or not, so almost Japanese
Wikipedians cannot
trust admins at all. And it seems very clear that admins abuse
sockpuppets
terribly unfairly. They have been blocking superior Wikipedians one
after
another. They would have done out of jealousy, inferiority complex,
and/or
anti-Japanese hate.

.......

Thank you.

Rocky7

_________________________________________________________________
Get the new Windows Live Messenger!
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-
us&source=wlmailtagline

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


subject:
[Foundation-l] Hi, Jimmy Wales,
 Is there inspectors to investigate admins?


from_name: Phil Sandifer

body:
On Sep 9, 2006, at 5:11 PM, geni wrote:
>
> Isn't revisionist history fun?

Clearly you enjoy it, yes.

Best,
Phil Sandifer
sandifer at english.ufl.edu

You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a
boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.

 >


from_name: cuneyt san

subject: [Foundation-l] COPPA

body:
good coppa  Your efforts beautifull :)

>From: Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org>
>Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>Subject: [Foundation-l] COPPA
>Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 12:27:27 -0400
>
>Xanga just got hit with big fines for "repeatedly allowing children
>under 13 to sign up for the service without getting their parent's
>consent".  How does COPPA affect Wikimedia projects?
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_________________________________________________________________
Sevdiklerinizle Messenger'da g?r?s?n ve sesli sohbet edin!
http://messenger.live.com


subject: [Foundation-l] COPPA


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Rory Stolzenberg wrote:

>We have to assume good faith in image uploads unless there's a reason to do
>otherwise.  If we find the image on the internet saying it's copyrighted
>with all rights reserved, then we'd delete it, or if every other of the
>user's 200 images were proved to be copyvios, we'd delete it, but if we have
>no evidence, we don't delete it.
>
Of course a general copyright notice on a page that includes the picture
along with other material does not imply that the picture is by itself
protected by copyright.

Ec


from_name: geni

body:
On 9/10/06, Akash Mehta <draicone at gmail.com> wrote:
> Absolutely. Each article should have some form of individual entry
> with a quick method of voting for or against, and an overall comments
> section at the bottom. Then again, the whole deletion review principle
> appears to serve an insignificant and problematic need. Maybe a MfD?

This possibility was discussed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion/WikiProject_Wikipedians_for_Decency#Nominated_for_deletion

I think it was generaly assumed it was a bad idea.

--
geni


body:
Rory Stolzenberg wrote:

>On 9/9/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
>
>>On 9/9/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If the original author doesn't care about attribution, or their rights
>>>as photographer, or what happens to the image, then get them to assign
>>>the copyright to someone else in a deed. Then the other person can do
>>>whatever they want with the image, since they own the copyright.
>>>
>>>
>>Copyright assignment might work.  But is the listed source supposed to
>>be the author or the copyright holder?
>>
>Usually it's both since they're one and the same, but we actually want the
>copyright holder.  It doesn't matter to us who took it, only who owns it,
>since that's who would be using the license that we have to know. Same with
>fair use images; we want to know the copyright holder, not some random
>website with the image (though that is helpful if it says who the copyright
>owner is).
>
Who owns the copyright is clearly more important than who owns the
picture or who physically took the picture.  Former copyright ownership
should even be shown for PD images to help establish that they are in
fact PD.

Grandma's assignment could be a positive step forward, but asking her to
do that doesn't help if grandma's dead.  The problem could continue for
another 70 years.  While she was alive grandma was never concerned about
who took the pictures in the family album, and the copyrights that might
go along with those pictures.  She never bothered to make a will,
because she never had anything of monetary value.  In the simplest
posthumous situation grandma had two children, who are both still alive,
but can't get along with each other on anything.  One wants to protect
what he believes to be the sacred memory of grandma by allowing nothing
to be made public; the other considers it a celebration of grandma to
publish everything.  As the number of children and grandchildren
increases things can only get worse.  In fact, any one of the children
(and any one of the grandchildren whose parent is deceased) can release
the material without regard to the others' claims of copyright.

Ec


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 20:23:11 -0400, "Carl Peterson"
<carlopeterson at gmail.com> wrote:

>Speaking of process votes, one of the biggest problems I see with DRV is
>that it becomes a second AFD. For example, if you look at the DRV for the
>CVU you'll notice that most of the comments (including some of my own) had
>more to do with the original delete/keep discussion that took place in the
>MfD than it did with whether or not policy was followed in the way the MfD
>was closed.

It is strange that you see it this way.  As far as I can see, DRV is
one of the few places where there is a serious attempt at a clue-based
approach.  Whatever the notional rules, people look at both content
and process, and take a view on what is likely to be best for the
project.

Obviously it's not consistent, but I have seen patient explanations to
purveyors of egregious vanity and other examples of good practice.

I have also seen that the process is denounced by those who fail to
get their favoured articles kept - the ED mob, for example.  That is
not DRV's fault, it's the fault of people who have a stake in the
content of an article becoming excessively impassioned.

In the case of the esoteric programming languages, overall, most of
them were below the level of trivial and in many cases looked like
vanity for the creators.  Several people at DRV asked that those which
were considered to have been wrongly deleted, be listed separately,
since the majority were clearly (to my mind) delete-worthy.

But I do think that AfD is not a good mechanism for deciding on a
class of articles.  Maybe a block RfC to discuss the individual
articles, with an AfD nom at the end for those which by consensus in
that discussion should be deleted.

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