subject: [Wikipedia-l] Tajik Wikipedia

body:
Aha, here is some:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/tajikistan/story/2006/05/060528_ivanov_larichani_zk_cyr.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/story/2006/05/060528_la-ivanov-larijani.shtml

I'll play around a bit with that...

Fran

On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 04:31 +0100, Francis Tyers wrote:
> Cool :)
>
> I've added those per your suggestion, although i just made the YEH as IE
> for now... I really have to look further into digraphs etc.
>
> Do you have any bitext? (e.g. aligned translations -- one side Tajik,
> the other side Farsi?) That would make development a hell of a lot
> easier...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Fran
>
> PS. I now have a ~8,000 entry wordlist and growing... I might play
> around with that in the future.
>
> On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 18:04 -0700, Mark Williamson wrote:
> > Also, you're missing a few letters.
> >
> > I'm not 100% certain about the *proper* conversion of the following
> > passage, but:
> >
> > ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ??
> > ??????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?????? ????: ?????? ??????? [ ????? ??? ?:??
> > ] ????????? ?????? ??????? ????? ?????? ????? ???????? ?????? ?? ?????
> > ??????? ????? ????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????
> > ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ???????? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ??
> > ????? ?? ???? ???? ???????? ?????? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ?? ????
> > ??????? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ??????? ?????? ??? ????
> > ?????????? ?? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ?????? ???????
> > ?????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ?????
> > ?? ??????? ?? ????. ?? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??????? ??????? ?? ???????
> > ????? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ???????? ??????? ??????
> > ?? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ??????????? ???? ????? ????? ?????
> > ??????? ????? ?? ??????? ???????? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ??????
> > ????. ?? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ?? ?????
> > ???????? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ?? ??? ????? ??
> > ???? ???. ?? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????????????? ???? ??????
> > ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ?????????? ?? ????
> > ?????? ?? ?? ????? ????? ????.
> >
> > As you can see, there're quite a few letters missing. One thing worth
> > noting is that if you have the sequece "??", it's actually much more
> > likely to be "??".
> >
> > But while I'm at it, I'll give you the proper transliterations for the
> > missed letters:
> >
 < <? > ?
 < <? > it means there is another vowel, as in ??????? (Esraail; Israel)
 < <? > ?
 < <? > ? as in ??? > ????? (speech)
 < <? > ? as in ????? > ?????? (ethnic)
 < <? > ? as in ??? > ??? (gigantic)
 < <? > ?
 < <? > ? as in ??? > ???? (wager)
 < <? > ? as in ??? > ??? (migration)
>  <
> > Best,
> > Mark
> > On 28/05/06, Francis Tyers <spectre at ivixor.net> wrote:
> > > Actually the opposite ;)
> > >
> > > The italics were the ones that seemed to me to be discernable.
> > >
> > > I'm working on messing around with the vowels. It would be helpful if
> > > there was an "official" transliteration standard, but I can't seem to
> > > find one.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the link to RFE, I've actually already been trawling it to
> > > download as much as I can in Tajik, then I intend to produce a wordlist
> > > (possibly by frequency) and experiment with comparing "transliterated"
> > > Farsi with the wordlist by edit distance.
> > >
> > > It would be helpful to have a bilingual dictionary, but I don't think
> > > any currently exist in machine tractable form.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Fran
> > >
> > > On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 14:37 -0700, Mark Williamson wrote:
> > > > Also, I noticed that you seemed to use italics for what you took to be
> > > > incorrect transliterations.
> > > >
> > > > In fact:
> > > >
> > > > "?????" is an incorrect transliteration of "?? ????", same with "????"
> > > > and "??????"; "?????" and "?????"; "????" and "?? ???", "???????" and
> > > > "??????????"; "???" and "????"; "??????" and "?????????" (except for
> > > > the -and suffix); "?????" and "??????"; "?????????" and "?? ???????";
> > > > and possibly even "?? ???? ??????" and "??????????".
> > > >
> > > > This is because not all vowels are always explicitly indicated in
> > > > Farsi. The only way to know is to be a native speaker or to use a
> > > > dictionary.
> > > >
> > > > Mark
> > > >
> > > > On 28/05/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > ...having said that, that won't fix the fact that Tajik uses more
> > > > > Russian loanwords than Farsi.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark
> > > > >
> > > > > On 28/05/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Francis,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have a suggestion to improve this software: build a corpus from the
> > > > > > Tajik RFE website http://www.ozodi.org/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As you can pretty obviously tell, not all vowels are indicated in
> > > > > > Farsi, so in some cases there *should* be multiple candidates for
> > > > > > transliteration. For example, Farsi "yeh" can be transliterated in a
> > > > > > number of different ways.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In these cases, a simple search of the corpus should reveal which
> > > > > > alternative is an actual word, or which is most frequent, and select
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mark
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 28/05/06, Francis Tyers <spectre at ivixor.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > Are there actually any Tajik native speakers working on the Tajik
> > > > > > > Wikipedia at the moment?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd like to discuss some software I'm making with them...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://82.133.33.43/~spectre/tajik/tajik.php
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've had a look over at tg. but it seems to be very inactive.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fran
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > > > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > > > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Separating admin accounts from user accounts (Re:
 katefan0)

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 5/28/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Not really. It just so happens that our admin who works on pokemon
>> articles has never edited [[Raticate]]. in any case it would be fairly
>> trivial to use brute force searching to figure out who was doing what.
>
> Yes, if we allowed brute force accessing of it.
>
> Anyway I'm just brainstorming here. What if we had classes of admins
> that were "secret", but agreed not to involve themselves in edit
> disputes at all (eg, protecting pages, rolling back...) How can we
> reduce the likelihood of admins getting WR'd?
>

That was the intention of my original post. I did say that it was a
radical proposal, not my final solution.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060529/24c16fb3/attachment.pgp


from_name: Conrad Dunkerson

subject: [WikiEN-l] To: Jimmy Wales - Admin-driven death of Wikipedia

body:
* charles matthews wrote:

> There has never been a shortage of criticism of certain admin actions.  A
> high proportion of this has always been mud-slinging by those rightly the
> target of admin sanctions.

While that is certainly true I think it should be noted that those who are
"rightly" dealt with seldom (if ever) have much impact on Wikipedia as a
whole... the user base looks on and finds the action generally equitable
and unworthy of further comment. That's not the problem. It's the times
when an admin or group of admins takes action that the community finds
unjustified or contemptuous... and nothing is done about it.

The fact is that we have high standards of civility (which IMO includes
avoidance of personal attacks, respect for consensus, consistent
treatment, et cetera) for users - placing blocks when a line is crossed...
even higher standards for becoming an admin... and very very low standards
once you HAVE become an admin. There are admins who are routinely incivil,
make personal attacks on a regular basis, and thumb their noses at
consensus... and that IS damaging Wikipedia. People always go on about
'tougher standards to become an admin', but I don't see that making any
difference... , many people will always do what they can get away with
doing. If they have to be saintly to become an admin they will be
saintly... right up to the point they get that sysop bit.

Look around at your fellow admins from time to time and ask yourself... is
there ANY way this person could pass an RFA at this point? If the answer
is 'no' then the de facto situation is that a person who does NOT have the
support or respect of the community has powers which are only supposed to
be held by those who DO... and that inherently breeds disruption and
resentment and ongoing damage to Wikipedia as a whole.


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Fred Bauder

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] blatant state-sponsored copyright violations (by
	Baide Baiku of the PRC)

body:
You are not thinking like a lawyer. A defendant with a fat pocketbook
is always worth considering.

Fred

On May 29, 2006, at 5:06 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:

> On 29/05/06, SCO Estmort <eudaimonic.leftist at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Is there any way we can take action against Baidu Baike? Surely
>> there is
>> some legal means of recourse, because they apparently are taking
>> things from
>> the Chinese Wikipedia wholesale, with utter copyright violations.
>> We have to
>> deal with copyright issues, I don't see why we should idly stand
>> by and let
>> ourselves get trampled over with. Since we have been sending cease
>> and
>> desist notices to small mirrors now, surely this is the ripe
>> target, as
>> Baidu Baike is state-sponsored by the People's Republic of China.
>>
>
> Call me cynical and all, but if you want to find a ripe legal target,
> perhaps picking one that won't have its legal bills paid by a
> *country* would be a good start. (Let's leave aside the interesting
> legal question of whether or not the Foundation has legal standing to
> sue.)
>
> We can't fight China; it'd waste our time and they wouldn't even
> notice. We're not magically endowed crusaders for truth and justice;
> we're writers. Ripe targets are all well and good, but picking a fight
> we can win should come before picking a fight that sounds good.
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: SCO Estmort

body:
Is there any way we can take action against Baidu Baike? Surely there is
some legal means of recourse, because they apparently are taking things from
the Chinese Wikipedia wholesale, with utter copyright violations. We have to
deal with copyright issues, I don't see why we should idly stand by and let
ourselves get trampled over with. Since we have been sending cease and
desist notices to small mirrors now, surely this is the ripe target, as
Baidu Baike is state-sponsored by the People's Republic of China.

As an example of lifting, see their
version<http://baike.baidu.com/lemma-php/dispose/view.php/202855.htm>versus
our
version<http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%25E4%25B8%25AD%25E5%259B%25BD%25E5%2590%258C%25E7%259B%259F%25E4%25BC%259A>.
This occurs for the huge majority of articles (90,000). For context, these
are articles which discuss Sun Yat-Sen. Our version at zh was much earlier,
with last edits in January, while Baidu Baike, set up in April has only made
minor excisions and modifications. It is clear that the contributors to the
Wikipedia article hold the copyright.

I think we should give up any hope of negotiating with the PRC entirely, as
they obviously have taken a hostile and insulting stance to us by lifting
material wholesale, then saying it is their copyright. This is such a gross
violation of Wikipedia's philosophy, and PRC being a member of the World
Trade Organisation (with compulsory ratification of the WIPO), some form of
action *must* be taken. I do not think this is a time for lega pacifism.

If we could initiate any attempts I think the whole community will cheer on.
The right to sue is clearly there, perhaps the tediousness is in collecting
copyright holders, but then again I think we can make a point of this case.
The PRC is required to comply, because such a gross violation can mean PRC's
expulsion from the WTO. If anything I think we should treat Baidu Baike as
an enemy, and drop any pretenses or hopes that the PRC will ever willingly
unblock zh.

Natalinasmpf


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Are phone books reliable sources?

body:
That was a good one!  If that's what Delirium was talking about, I
guess that's OK.  But I disagree that we should be using phone books
as sources for individual people, famous or not.

Anthony

On 5/29/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> The surname "Ng" is one of the most common in Melbourne, spanning 47
> pages of the 2006 phone book...
>
> Steve
>
> On 5/29/06, Joe Anderson <computerjoe.mailinglist at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > I would be interested to see how a phonebook would be used as a source.
> >


from_name: Traroth

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re :  sanger on 'open meritocracies'

body:
 Michael Snow a ?crit :

>And for the other projects, a wiki is sometimes far from ideal, true
>enough. That's been recognized for some time, which is why there are
>ongoing efforts to adapt or extend the software to better serve those
>objectives. In the meantime, the wiki is the tool we've got. Tired
>cliches aside, I'm sure better ones would be welcomed if somebody cares
>to offer us more tools.

That's not false. But a question remains : why did Wikipedia become a hit, with millions of articles in hundred of languages, while Nupedia, which actually followed the same principles as Wikipedia, except it was not a wiki, never reached 100 articles ?

Traroth


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [WikiEN-l] katefan0 (was: First post)

body:
On 5/29/06, Rob <gamaliel8 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/28/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ignore them.
>
> Ignoring them didn't do Katefan0 any good.

This is exactly the point. To start with, they at least had the
potential to offer something constructive that we could use to improve
the project. The only productive threads were ones started by me and
other WP regulars in the vain hope of eliciting something positive,
but every discussion degenerated into an abuse-fest against whichever
admin was out of favour that week.

We tolerated their existence as a legitimate source of criticism,
which is not only entirely appropriate, it should be encouraged;
external criticism is the best kind. I used to think that good WP
users could participate and mould WR into something beneficial to the
project. Then I used to think that we should all leave them alone so
they could consume themselves in their own bile.

But now their petty hatred is having consequences in the real world,
and for me, that is crossing a line. Forgive me for being so
uncharacteristically agressive, but I have simply had enough of WR.

On 5/29/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Brandt is seperate from WR. Need to find him something else to campain against.

WR serves Brandt as a ready made circle of sycophants.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
On 5/29/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
> But those who are potentially legitimate critics do themselves a serious
>  disservice by participating in a forum with people who are, quite
> simply, mental cases, and who discredit the entire operation with what
> can only be classified as offensive hate speech and stalking.

The problem, of course, is that it was the nutcases who started the
forum, and the legitimate critics were drawn there in a search for an
outlet for their criticism. Someone should start a forum and invite
the legitimate critics there, and give them the chance to separate
themselves from the pure trolls. Not only will they be able to
properly produce criticism, but we will be able to do something with
it to improve the project. External criticism is something that
currently comes from far too few quarters.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re : sanger on 'open meritocracies'

body:
On 5/29/06, Traroth <traroth at yahoo.fr> wrote:
>  Michael Snow a ?crit :
>
> >And for the other projects, a wiki is sometimes far from ideal, true
> >enough. That's been recognized for some time, which is why there are
> >ongoing efforts to adapt or extend the software to better serve those
> >objectives. In the meantime, the wiki is the tool we've got. Tired
> >cliches aside, I'm sure better ones would be welcomed if somebody cares
> >to offer us more tools.
>
> That's not false. But a question remains : why did Wikipedia become a hit, with millions of articles in hundred of languages, while Nupedia, which actually followed the same principles as Wikipedia, except it was not a wiki, never reached 100 articles ?
>

I don't think you can completely separate "the wiki part" from the
"success" [1] of Wikipedia.  The fact that in Wikipedia there were
almost no barriers to contribution/collaboration (explicit, technical,
social, etc.) was, as far as I can tell, the only significant
difference between the two projects.

But I don't see the elimination of barriers to contribution as being
exclusive to being a wiki.  Is DMOZ a wiki?  Would it become one if
you eliminated the rules about signing up and getting approved before
you can "become an editor"?

Jimmy Wales tried applying "the wiki part" to a web directory
(Wikiasari).  The project failed miserably.

I dunno, maybe DMOZ *would* be "a wiki" if you eliminated just a
couple of the stupid rules.  And maybe it would be enormously more
successful if you did so.  Of course, maybe Nupedia would have
overtaken Wikipedia by now if Bomis had just funded it for a few more
years.  I've read before that Larry Sanger thinks this.

[1] Wikipedia's definitely enormously popular, and it has certainly
managed to produce an enormous breadth of information.  The average
quality, on the other hand, is mediocre, and I personally have serious
doubts as to whether or not that's a situation that's correctable.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Policy on adding (many, relevant) links to articles?

body:
On 5/29/06, Nick Boalch <n.g.boalch at durham.ac.uk> wrote:
> Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
> > Please *don't* just use the GFDL for photos. Use a Creative Commons
> > Attribution license instead of, or together with the GFDL.
>
> Why?
>
One of the most obvious reasons is the requirement that the entire
text of the GFDL be distributed with the image.

Of course, this and most of the reasons are also good reasons you
shouldn't ever use *just* the GFDL for anything.  The GFDL is a
horrible license.  The only reason it's useful at all is the fact that
no one actually follows it.

See "Criticisms of the GFDL" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL for
some more info.

Anthony


from_name: Rob

subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
On 5/28/06, A. Nony Mouse <mousyme at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'll note that once, I spoke to you on IRC, and you demanded that I not
> refer to you as "preening", and that you would in return speak with me
> later. You never bothered responding to my PM attempts again.

There's nothing incompatible with being open to listening to
constructive criticism and refusing to converse with people who insult
you.


subject: [WikiEN-l] katefan0 (was: First post)

body:
On 5/28/06, A. Nony Mouse <mousyme at gmail.com> wrote:

> If it's populated with nincompoops, it's wikipedia's own nincompoops who
> sent them there. And yes, wikipediareview DOES have legitimate posters and
> legitimate calls for reform.
>
> But then again, coming from someone whose greatest desire is to "destroy"
> another website for daring to criticize you...

Is it that you don't understand the difference between criticism and
trying to get someone fired from their job, or is it that you want to
pretend the latter incident didn't happen?


from_name: Mark Williamson

body:
We're not magically endowed crusaders for truth and justice??!?!?!?!
It should say that at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT

Why didn't anyone tell me??? I have been putting that on my
professional r?sum? ever since my one year anniversary as a
Wikipedian!

Mark

On 29/05/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29/05/06, SCO Estmort <eudaimonic.leftist at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Is there any way we can take action against Baidu Baike? Surely there is
> > some legal means of recourse, because they apparently are taking things from
> > the Chinese Wikipedia wholesale, with utter copyright violations. We have to
> > deal with copyright issues, I don't see why we should idly stand by and let
> > ourselves get trampled over with. Since we have been sending cease and
> > desist notices to small mirrors now, surely this is the ripe target, as
> > Baidu Baike is state-sponsored by the People's Republic of China.
>
> Call me cynical and all, but if you want to find a ripe legal target,
> perhaps picking one that won't have its legal bills paid by a
> *country* would be a good start. (Let's leave aside the interesting
> legal question of whether or not the Foundation has legal standing to
> sue.)
>
> We can't fight China; it'd waste our time and they wouldn't even
> notice. We're not magically endowed crusaders for truth and justice;
> we're writers. Ripe targets are all well and good, but picking a fight
> we can win should come before picking a fight that sounds good.
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re :  Re : sanger on 'open meritocracies'

body:
De : Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com>

>Well, as said, for Wikipedia wiki worked very well. That doesn't mean
>it works as well for other projects. A wiki means several things at
>once, and it is one of them (the wiki philosophy of free editing and
>control afterward instead of in advance) that made Wikipedia work
>where Nupedia did not. Wiktionary would I think work better in an
>environment with the same philosophy but a different technology (more
>database-like rather than marked up text). Wikiquote and Commons might
>well profit from a similar switch. For Wikisource the whole 'free
>editing' concept itself does not seem as suitable, or at least, not  as
>necessary.

IMHO, wikiway could be useful for Wikisource, to produce free translation. Even if an artwork is free from rights (For example : ''Hamlet'' from Shakespeare), it does not mean a free french (or arab, spanish or bambara) translation of this artwork exists. But for the original work, wiki is not only unnecessary but even damaging.

Traroth


from_name: charles matthews

body:
 "Resid Gulerdem" wrote

> Some people feel
> marginalized and faced to bias actions from some
> admins. Isn't this important enough to address? The
> answer to the question is strongly related to the
> strategic call of being inclusive or exclusive.

There has never been a shortage of criticism of certain admin actions.  A
high proportion of this has always been mud-slinging by those rightly the
target of admin sanctions.

The issue of 'bias' is better phrased another way.  Do admins apply admin
powers in attempts to control article content, in a way that is negative
from the point of view of compliance with fundamental policies on content?
It turns out that it is much harder to make a good case of this kind, than
to make general accusations on 'bias'.  (I was accused myself like this last
week.)  Admin action is there to defend the project, and you have to look at
the effects in particular with respect to NPOV.

It is of course not ruled out that admins make mistakes (it happens often).
Usually, though, our admins understand the policies much better than their
accusers, and are not the ones trying to game the system, or apply
'wikilawyer' tactics against the spirit of policy.

Charles


from_name: Pedro Sanchez

body:
I emphasize the "together" bit

On 5/29/06, Nick Boalch <n.g.boalch at durham.ac.uk> wrote:
> Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
> > Please *don't* just use the GFDL for photos. Use a Creative Commons
> > Attribution license instead of, or together with the GFDL.
>
> Why?
>
> Cheers,
>
> N.
>
> --
> Nicholas Boalch
> School of Modern Languages & Cultures       Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3456
> University of Durham                        Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421
> New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK               WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Joe Anderson

body:
I would be interested to see how a phonebook would be used as a source.

On 5/29/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
> >On 5/26/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>When we choose to publish facts on private people
> >>versus public people, for example, is a judgment call about how
> >>"notable" they are---not anything to do with verifiability, as many
> >>private/non-notable people have information about them verifiable from
> >>e.g. phone books.
> >>
> >>
> >Actually, I'd dispute that a phone book is a reliable source.  It's
> >pretty easy to get fake information into a phone book.  Also I'd say
> >there usually isn't enough information in a phone book to uniquely
> >identify a person anyway.
> >
> >I'd go so far as to say phone books are completely excludable as
> >Wikipedia sources, regardless of whether the information is on a
> >public or private person, famous or average, "notable" or
> >"non-notable".
> >
> While I acknowledge that most phone book information has very limited
> value, but it is easy to imagine situations where that would not be the
> case.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Joe Anderson

[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Peter Jacobi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Live mirrors of de.wikipedia

body:
These popup-infested warts mirror de.wikipedia by
live inclusion of content:

http://www.nachgeschlagen.com/wiki/Hauptseite
http://www.easy-lexikon.de/wiki/Hauptseite
http://www.web01.de/wiki/Hauptseite

compare:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauptseite

The third one does something creative but wrong, and
sometimes gets English instead of German pages.

Regards,
Peter Jacobi
[[User:Pjacobi]]

--

Bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten sparen: GMX SmartSurfer!
      Kostenlos downloaden: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer


from_name: Nick Boalch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Userbox policy achieved?

body:
Molu wrote:
['Userbox: namespace]
> Are we finally at the end of the road? Or will this policy also get
> rejected as no consensus?

I don't particularly want to bring the ongoing userbox debate onto here
as well, but: yes, hopefully it will be rejected. Lending a false sense
of legitimacy to userboxes is clearly a Bad Thing.

Cheers,

N.

--
Nicholas Boalch
School of Modern Languages & Cultures       Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3456
University of Durham                        Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421
New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK               WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/


body:
On 5/29/06, Berto <albertoserra at ukr.net> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> >Wikipedia's definitely enormously popular, and it has certainly
> >managed to produce an enormous breadth of information.  The average
> >quality, on the other hand, is mediocre, and I personally have serious
> >doubts as to whether or not that's a situation that's correctable.
>
> Quality is an issue, yet most people will believe Wikipedia anyway, just
> because it's free and it's often the only available online information
> source on a given subject. Doubts about quality, on the other side, may not
> be referred to wikis only. It's a lot of sites on the net publishing pure
> trash, and sometimes they even want money for you to read it...
>
> I suppose the only answer is into trying to concentrate wiki growth towards
> quality, instead of making it only a quantity matter. Yet, the internal
> success mark (at the moment) still is limited to "how many articles you guys
> got?". Until this internal perception does not change, there will be no
> chance to improve quality.
>
My doubts come from the fact that Wikipedia, from its very birth, was
never designed to produce a final product.  "Nupedia started Wikipedia
as a side project to allow collaboration on articles prior to entering
the peer review process."

I'm just not sure it's possible to ratchet up the quality controls
(explicit/rules-based, technical, social, etc.) without also killing
the very openness which has proven to be so necessary in getting
people to work for free.  I suppose it could be attempted on an
article by article basis, but that's going to cause a significant
cultural shift which may or may not work.

Anthony


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
2006/5/29, Traroth <traroth at yahoo.fr>:
>  Michael Snow a ?crit :
>
> >And for the other projects, a wiki is sometimes far from ideal, true
> >enough. That's been recognized for some time, which is why there are
> >ongoing efforts to adapt or extend the software to better serve those
> >objectives. In the meantime, the wiki is the tool we've got. Tired
> >cliches aside, I'm sure better ones would be welcomed if somebody cares
> >to offer us more tools.
>
> That's not false. But a question remains : why did Wikipedia become a hit, with millions of articles in hundred of languages, while Nupedia, which actually followed the same principles as Wikipedia, except it was not a wiki, never reached 100 articles ?

Well, as said, for Wikipedia wiki worked very well. That doesn't mean
it works as well for other projects. A wiki means several things at
once, and it is one of them (the wiki philosophy of free editing and
control afterward instead of in advance) that made Wikipedia work
where Nupedia did not. Wiktionary would I think work better in an
environment with the same philosophy but a different technology (more
database-like rather than marked up text). Wikiquote and Commons might
well profit from a similar switch. For Wikisource the whole 'free
editing' concept itself does not seem as suitable, or at least, not as
necessary.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


from_name: jossif at mac.com

body:
On May 29, 2006, at 5:11 AM, Peter Ansell wrote:

> The community has no power to take away, other admins are the only
> ones who have any power to take away rights, and the threat of being
> told not to wheel war seems to be stopping admins from making hard
> decisions about other admins.

Peter,

Can you show me *one* example in which you made a complaint against
an administrator at WP:ANI and you were not listened, to or the
complaint not addressed.

Thanks,

-- Jossi


from_name: Piotr Pazola

subject: [Wikitech-l] Commons: url of a image

body:
Hi,

I use Text_Wiki package to parse database of polish wikipedia. I need some information about commons, i.e.: i've got something like that: [[Image:Violin case.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Skrzypce w futerale|]] and i wanna link it to: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Violin_case.jpg/200px-Violin_case.jpg. What I need is the unknown part of url string: "/c/c0/", how could I establish it? I've been looking for any data quering wiki's database, but i don't see useful information, unfortunately.

Thank you.

Greets,
Piter.


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 29/05/06, SCO Estmort <eudaimonic.leftist at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there any way we can take action against Baidu Baike? Surely there is
> some legal means of recourse, because they apparently are taking things from
> the Chinese Wikipedia wholesale, with utter copyright violations. We have to
> deal with copyright issues, I don't see why we should idly stand by and let
> ourselves get trampled over with. Since we have been sending cease and
> desist notices to small mirrors now, surely this is the ripe target, as
> Baidu Baike is state-sponsored by the People's Republic of China.

Call me cynical and all, but if you want to find a ripe legal target,
perhaps picking one that won't have its legal bills paid by a
*country* would be a good start. (Let's leave aside the interesting
legal question of whether or not the Foundation has legal standing to
sue.)

We can't fight China; it'd waste our time and they wouldn't even
notice. We're not magically endowed crusaders for truth and justice;
we're writers. Ripe targets are all well and good, but picking a fight
we can win should come before picking a fight that sounds good.

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


from_name: Filip Maljkovic

subject: [Wikitech-l] Commons: url of a image

body:
Piotr Pazola wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I use Text_Wiki package to parse database of polish wikipedia. I need some information about commons, i.e.: i've got something like that: [[Image:Violin case.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Skrzypce w futerale|]] and i wanna link it to: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Violin_case.jpg/200px-Violin_case.jpg. What I need is the unknown part of url string: "/c/c0/", how could I establish it? I've been looking for any data quering wiki's database, but i don't see useful information, unfortunately.
>
There's Special:Filepath that could help you. But you have to do it all
manually unless you create an extension.
Filip


from_name: Travis Mason-Bushman

body:
On 5/29/06 9:55 AM, "Conrad Dunkerson" <conrad.dunkerson at worldnet.att.net>
wrote:

> To put it another way... if something would have been so disruptive as to
> prevent a person from ever being appointed an admin in the first place why
> is it suddenly ok AFTER they become an admin?

One does not have to be "disruptive" to be prevented from becoming an admin.
All it takes is to make any decision on-wiki which in any way creates
controversy, and it then becomes ridiculously easy to votestack the RFA with
opposition.

Admins are routinely called upon to make precisely the sort of controversial
decisions on-wiki that will inevitably leave someone pissed off. Deletion
and verifiable/reliable sourcing questions quite often result in the people
making the choices being called censors, Nazis and all sorts of vulgar
names.

> Admins are appointed by the community... and when the police lose the
> support of the people they are policing they generally get replaced... or
> the neighborhood goes to hell.

Ah, no. One cannot fire a police officer merely because he "loses the
support of the people," whatever that means. One must go before a review
board, such as a Police Commission, and demonstrate that the officer has
committed wrongful acts - abuse of power, misuse of force, etc. Similarly,
we have a procedure to allow review of administrative decisions through the
Arbitration Committee. Several admins have lost their sysop bit due to
ArbCom actions, so this is not some sort of paper tiger but a real check on
administrative abuses.

I agree that admins cannot and should not be seen as untouchable and perhaps
we need to make clearer to people who feel wronged that they do have
recourse to appeal. At the same time, to expect the people that we call upon
to make controversial and contentious decisions about the encyclopedia to be
somehow subject to the arbitrary whim of the "support of the people" at any
time is the height of insanity.

-Travis Mason-Bushman


list: foundation-l

from_name: Gavin Chait

subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
The most immediate concern for the Wiki Foundation is less the idea of an
office with furniture and windows, or even the difficulties of
collaboration, mostly it is continuity.

At the moment the founders are involved.  They have an idea of what they
want and how to achieve that.  There are now thousands of regular
contributors who are influencing that direction.  There are millions of
occasional contributors who muddy the edges.  How do you ensure continuity?

One of the first development organisations I worked in 15 years ago was a
student-run endeavour at the University of Cape Town.  Every year hundreds
of students volunteer and contribute to different projects.  Each project is
run by older students.  Continuity is difficult where students graduate and
leave each year.  Sometimes entire projects vanish when the students who
know how to run them fail to come back.

The solution was to employ a small band of professionals whose task is to
make sure that projects are properly budgeted and accounted for, keep track
of how the different projects interact, and ensure that the overall emphasis
of the organisation remains focused.  The professionals ensure consistency
while the volunteers contribute fresh ideas, fresh thinking, new directions
and lots of enthusiasm.

It has worked well for more than 50 years for this organisation.

Offices are far less important than continuity.  And the more you rely on
volunteers, the more important it is to have a solid base of professionals -
where-ever they may be.


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


body:
On 29/05/06, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
> For Wikisource the whole 'free
> editing' concept itself does not seem as suitable, or at least, not as
> necessary.

It's not bad for proofreading of OCRed text, but this is a rather
limited use of it.

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
> Please *don't* just use the GFDL for photos. Use a Creative Commons
> Attribution license instead of, or together with the GFDL.

Why?

Cheers,

N.

--
Nicholas Boalch
School of Modern Languages & Cultures       Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3456
University of Durham                        Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421
New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK               WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/


from_name: BJörn Lindqvist

body:
On 5/29/06, Joe Anderson <computerjoe.mailinglist at googlemail.com> wrote:
> I would be interested to see how a phonebook would be used as a source.
>

"According to the 2005/06 edition of Los Angeles phonebook bla bla,
Madonna lives at Hollywood street blah blah and has the phone number
555-xyz"

easy

--
mvh Bj?rn


body:
Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
> Look around at your fellow admins from time to time and ask yourself... is
> there ANY way this person could pass an RFA at this point? If the answer
> is 'no' then the de facto situation is that a person who does NOT have the
> support or respect of the community has powers which are only supposed to
> be held by those who DO... and that inherently breeds disruption and
> resentment and ongoing damage to Wikipedia as a whole.

I don't think that is a particularly fair test. As is obvious, admins
are occasionally called upon to perform actions that upset people -- I
don't think admins should shrink from making those hard choices.

I can think of several thoroughgoingly solid admins, people who temper a
good knowledge of policy with a healthy dose of knowing that what we're
here to do is write an encyclopaedia, who I doubt would pass an RfA
because they've done things that have made them controversial or
unpopular in certain sectors of the community.

The community giveth, and the community taketh away -- but it taketh
away under the auspices of proper consideration by the arbitration
committee, not by having unpopular admins strung up by a baying lynchmob.

Cheers,

N.

--
Nicholas Boalch
School of Modern Languages & Cultures       Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3456
University of Durham                        Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421
New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK               WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/


from_name: Conrad Dunkerson

body:
* Steve Bennett wrote:

> I don't think admins
> necessarily need to enjoy broad-based popularity, but they do need the
> support of the most experienced Wikipedians, including arbitors.

You know... there is a term for that kind of an organizational structure.
One we go to some lengths to deny exists here.

> No
> one expects police to be popular - but you do expect them to have the
> support of the people who appoint them.

Admins are appointed by the community... and when the police lose the
support of the people they are policing they generally get replaced... or
the neighborhood goes to hell.


from_name: Yury Tarasievich

body:
On 29/05/06, Traroth <traroth at yahoo.fr> wrote:
> That's not false. But a question remains : why did Wikipedia become a hit, with millions of articles in hundred of languages, while Nupedia, which actually followed the same principles as Wikipedia, except it was not a wiki, never reached 100 articles ?

Should you judge phenomena involving human factor on their technical
merits alone?

-regards


from_name: Delphine Ménard

subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
On 5/29/06, Gavin Chait <gchait at gmx.net> wrote:
> The most immediate concern for the Wiki Foundation is less the idea of an
> office with furniture and windows, or even the difficulties of
> collaboration, mostly it is continuity.
>
> At the moment the founders are involved.  They have an idea of what they
> want and how to achieve that.  There are now thousands of regular
> contributors who are influencing that direction.  There are millions of
> occasional contributors who muddy the edges.  How do you ensure continuity?
>
> One of the first development organisations I worked in 15 years ago was a
> student-run endeavour at the University of Cape Town.  Every year hundreds
> of students volunteer and contribute to different projects.  Each project is
> run by older students.  Continuity is difficult where students graduate and
> leave each year.  Sometimes entire projects vanish when the students who
> know how to run them fail to come back.
>
> The solution was to employ a small band of professionals whose task is to
> make sure that projects are properly budgeted and accounted for, keep track
> of how the different projects interact, and ensure that the overall emphasis
> of the organisation remains focused.  The professionals ensure consistency
> while the volunteers contribute fresh ideas, fresh thinking, new directions
> and lots of enthusiasm.
>
> It has worked well for more than 50 years for this organisation.
>
> Offices are far less important than continuity.  And the more you rely on
> volunteers, the more important it is to have a solid base of professionals -
> where-ever they may be.

I agree 100%. Thank you for making that so clear.

Delphine

--
~notafish


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Template:spoiler

body:
On 5/29/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>
> > I wish there was at least a way to turn them off,
>
> There is.
>
>     div#spoiler { display:none; }
>
> > but then again I usually don't log in
>
> That would be a problem.
>
I just discovered that it's possible to use the "test styles"
bookmarklet (http://www.squarefree.com/bookmarklets/webdevel.html)
without logging in, though.  Hmm, now the trick is how to get that to
pop up automatically whenever I go to Wikipedia.  Not just for the
spoilers, of course:

div#spoiler { display:none; }
table#toc { display:none; }
div#siteNotice { display:none; }

are three particularly annoying ones that I can think of off the top of my head.

Anthony


from_name: Delirium

body:
Mark Gallagher wrote:
> G'day Nick,
>
>
>> Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Please *don't* just use the GFDL for photos. Use a Creative Commons
>>> Attribution license instead of, or together with the GFDL.
>>>
>> Why?
>>
>
> Because the GFDL is bloody awful.  CC-BY-SA gives all the advantages, to
> both content creators and users, without the unnecessary overhead and
> the strange feeling that one ought to be frothing at the mouth and
> bad-mouthing "Micro$oft" that always occurs when one attempts to use the
> GFDL.
>

I agree with images, and with many instances of text, but the GFDL is
still IMO the best choice for the purpose it was designed for, Free
books.  It balances the freedoms of allowing others to modify and
redistribute the content with some protection for the original author in
the form of the history sections, front-cover and back-cover texts, and
so on.  Although i do agree that it's unnecessarily cumbersome to have
to distribute the entire text of the GFDL rather than pointing to some
canonical URL.

-Mark


body:
* Nick Boalch wrote:

> I don't think that is a particularly fair test.

I can't speak to 'fair' only the realities of the situation. Our
documentation says that admins have extra powers because they are trusted
by the community. Should we change that to 'users who were ONCE trusted by
the community'?

> As is obvious, admins
> are occasionally called upon to perform actions that upset people -- I
> don't think admins should shrink from making those hard choices.

Neither do I... but there is a difference between making hard choices and
disrespecting the community. Couldn't those "solid admins" you mention,
who have become 'controversial or unpopular' have handled things in a
different way to avoid the animus? Mightn't they have been more likely to
if there were clear consequences of not doing so?

To put it another way... if something would have been so disruptive as to
prevent a person from ever being appointed an admin in the first place why
is it suddenly ok AFTER they become an admin? It makes the 'community
appointment' of admins into something of a smokescreen... community
approval is required for seven days, and not a minute more.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Userbox policy achieved?

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
>> ['Userbox: namespace]
>>> Are we finally at the end of the road? Or will this policy also get
>>> rejected as no consensus?
>>
>> I don't particularly want to bring the ongoing userbox debate onto here
>> as well, but: yes, hopefully it will be rejected. Lending a false sense
>> of legitimacy to userboxes is clearly a Bad Thing.
>
> What's this in relation to? I haven't seen any discussion of a userbox
> name space?

[[Wikipedia:May Userbox policy poll]]

Cheers,

N.

--
Nicholas Boalch
School of Modern Languages & Cultures       Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3456
University of Durham                        Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421
New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK               WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/


from_name: Tomer Chachamu

subject: [Wikitech-l] Commons: url of a image

body:
I think it's the md5 of "Violin_case.jpg".
http://pajhome.org.uk/crypt/md5/ shows "Violin_case.jpg" ->
"c08f6840732b9d9c6c7d7b6e71f04616"
and "Tetris.jpeg" -> "f80e1fb8ec92fbd63688b29ad53a9af"
so http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:Tetris.jpeg
is at http://uncyclopedia.org/images/c/cf/Tetris.jpeg
which is correct!

However, this behaviour may change in the future (I think it's
unlikely) so you should probably look at the MediaWiki code. Also,
thumbnails aren't made just because you visit the URL.

http://uncyclopedia.org/images/thumb/c/cf/Tetris.jpeg/180px-Tetris.jpeg
http://uncyclopedia.org/images/thumb/c/cf/Tetris.jpeg/190px-Tetris.jpeg

So maybe you need to call some MediaWiki code for it to be generated.

On 5/29/06, Piotr Pazola <piotr at gmm.com.pl> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I use Text_Wiki package to parse database of polish wikipedia. I need some information about commons, i.e.: i've got something like that: [[Image:Violin case.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Skrzypce w futerale|]] and i wanna link it to: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Violin_case.jpg/200px-Violin_case.jpg. What I need is the unknown part of url string: "/c/c0/", how could I establish it? I've been looking for any data quering wiki's database, but i don't see useful information, unfortunately.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Greets,
> Piter.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
Our administrators are not police officers. I see no problem with
requiring them to be reaffirmed every 2 years or so. If they are
unpleasant that is reason enough not to reaffirm them.

Fred

On May 29, 2006, at 1:12 PM, Travis Mason-Bushman wrote:

> Ah, no. One cannot fire a police officer merely because he "loses the
> support of the people," whatever that means. One must go before a
> review
> board, such as a Police Commission, and demonstrate that the
> officer has
> committed wrongful acts - abuse of power, misuse of force, etc.
> Similarly,
> we have a procedure to allow review of administrative decisions
> through the
> Arbitration Committee. Several admins have lost their sysop bit due to
> ArbCom actions, so this is not some sort of paper tiger but a real
> check on
> administrative abuses.
>
> I agree that admins cannot and should not be seen as untouchable
> and perhaps
> we need to make clearer to people who feel wronged that they do have
> recourse to appeal. At the same time, to expect the people that we
> call upon
> to make controversial and contentious decisions about the
> encyclopedia to be
> somehow subject to the arbitrary whim of the "support of the
> people" at any
> time is the height of insanity.
>
> -Travis Mason-Bushman


body:
Peter Ansell wrote:
>> The community giveth, and the community taketh away -- but it taketh
>> away under the auspices of proper consideration by the arbitration
>> committee, not by having unpopular admins strung up by a baying lynchmob.
>
> The community has no power to take away, other admins are the only
> ones who have any power to take away rights, and the threat of being
> told not to wheel war seems to be stopping admins from making hard
> decisions about other admins.

The community has the power indirectly through the dispute resolution
process. In something of an analogy to representative democracy, we've
appointed arbitrators to do the hard work for us.

Cheers,

N.

--
Nicholas Boalch
School of Modern Languages & Cultures       Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3456
University of Durham                        Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421
New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK               WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/


from_name: Petr Kadlec

subject: [Wikitech-l] Commons: url of a image

body:
Hi!

> I use Text_Wiki package to parse database of polish wikipedia. I need some information about commons, i.e.: i've got something like that: [[Image:Violin case.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Skrzypce w futerale|]] and i wanna link it to: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Violin_case.jpg/200px-Violin_case.jpg. What I need is the unknown part of url string: "/c/c0/", how could I establish it? I've been looking for any data quering wiki's database, but i don't see useful information, unfortunately.

Those are the first two characters from the MD5 hash of the name, take
a look at includes/Image.php.

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


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Userbox policy achieved?

body:
On 5/29/06, Nick Boalch <n.g.boalch at durham.ac.uk> wrote:
> Molu wrote:
> ['Userbox: namespace]
> > Are we finally at the end of the road? Or will this policy also get
> > rejected as no consensus?
>
> I don't particularly want to bring the ongoing userbox debate onto here
> as well, but: yes, hopefully it will be rejected. Lending a false sense
> of legitimacy to userboxes is clearly a Bad Thing.

What's this in relation to? I haven't seen any discussion of a userbox
name space?

For what it's worth, I realised today the true worth of userboxes.
There was a comment made in a project-space debate that could have
been either insightful or simply peanut-gallery stuff. Not knowing
which it was, I checked the user's page. Several hundred userboxes!
That made it so much easier to ignore his comment with a clear
conscience.

Steve


body:
The surname "Ng" is one of the most common in Melbourne, spanning 47
pages of the 2006 phone book...

Steve

On 5/29/06, Joe Anderson <computerjoe.mailinglist at googlemail.com> wrote:
> I would be interested to see how a phonebook would be used as a source.
>
> On 5/29/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> >
> > Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> >
> > >On 5/26/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>When we choose to publish facts on private people
> > >>versus public people, for example, is a judgment call about how
> > >>"notable" they are---not anything to do with verifiability, as many
> > >>private/non-notable people have information about them verifiable from
> > >>e.g. phone books.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >Actually, I'd dispute that a phone book is a reliable source.  It's
> > >pretty easy to get fake information into a phone book.  Also I'd say
> > >there usually isn't enough information in a phone book to uniquely
> > >identify a person anyway.
> > >
> > >I'd go so far as to say phone books are completely excludable as
> > >Wikipedia sources, regardless of whether the information is on a
> > >public or private person, famous or average, "notable" or
> > >"non-notable".
> > >
> > While I acknowledge that most phone book information has very limited
> > value, but it is easy to imagine situations where that would not be the
> > case.
> >
> > Ec
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Joe Anderson
>
> [[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
> _______________________________________________
> 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: geni

body:
On 5/29/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>
> G'day Nick,
>
> > Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
> >
> >>Please *don't* just use the GFDL for photos. Use a Creative Commons
> >>Attribution license instead of, or together with the GFDL.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because the GFDL is bloody awful.  CC-BY-SA gives all the advantages, to
> both content creators and users, without the unnecessary overhead and
> the strange feeling that one ought to be frothing at the mouth and
> bad-mouthing "Micro$oft" that always occurs when one attempts to use the
> GFDL.
>

The GFDL has it's uses if you want to minimise reuse.

--
geni


body:
On 5/29/06, Nick Boalch <n.g.boalch at durham.ac.uk> wrote:
> Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
> > Look around at your fellow admins from time to time and ask yourself... is
> > there ANY way this person could pass an RFA at this point? If the answer
> > is 'no' then the de facto situation is that a person who does NOT have the
> > support or respect of the community has powers which are only supposed to
> > be held by those who DO... and that inherently breeds disruption and
> > resentment and ongoing damage to Wikipedia as a whole.
>
> I don't think that is a particularly fair test. As is obvious, admins
> are occasionally called upon to perform actions that upset people -- I
> don't think admins should shrink from making those hard choices.
>
> I can think of several thoroughgoingly solid admins, people who temper a
> good knowledge of policy with a healthy dose of knowing that what we're
> here to do is write an encyclopaedia, who I doubt would pass an RfA
> because they've done things that have made them controversial or
> unpopular in certain sectors of the community.
>
> The community giveth, and the community taketh away -- but it taketh
> away under the auspices of proper consideration by the arbitration
> committee, not by having unpopular admins strung up by a baying lynchmob.

I agree with this. Funnily enough, I originally read RFA as "request
for arbitration" and agreed with the comment. I don't think admins
necessarily need to enjoy broad-based popularity, but they do need the
support of the most experienced Wikipedians, including arbitors. No
one expects police to be popular - but you do expect them to have the
support of the people who appoint them.

Steve


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Userbox policy achieved?

body:
On 5/29/06, Nick Boalch <n.g.boalch at durham.ac.uk> wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
> >
> > What's this in relation to? I haven't seen any discussion of a userbox
> > name space?
>
> [[Wikipedia:May Userbox policy poll]]

It's a non-starter.  If having userboxes in template space lends a
false sense of legitimacy to this useless and non-encyclopedic
privately produced and consumed content, having a separate namespace
for them would be worse.  And I don't see the developers buying this
idea, either.


body:
Heh, fwiw I think "ng" *is* one of the most common in Melbourne, no
idea how many pages it spans though. My own surname was around 20
pages last time I checked (a long time ago).

Steve

On 5/29/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> That was a good one!  If that's what Delirium was talking about, I
> guess that's OK.  But I disagree that we should be using phone books
> as sources for individual people, famous or not.

> On 5/29/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The surname "Ng" is one of the most common in Melbourne, spanning 47
> > pages of the 2006 phone book...


from_name: charles matthews

body:
"Conrad Dunkerson" wrote

> The fact is that we have high standards of civility (which IMO includes
> avoidance of personal attacks, respect for consensus, consistent
> treatment, et cetera) for users - placing blocks when a line is crossed...
> even higher standards for becoming an admin... and very very low standards
> once you HAVE become an admin. There are admins who are routinely incivil,
> make personal attacks on a regular basis, and thumb their noses at
> consensus... and that IS damaging Wikipedia.

That is technically untrue, since every syllable of policy on civility
applies to admins; and morally has even greater force.  There is not the
slightest reason to lapse in _civilty_ while talking and acting tough.  In
fact it undermines the impression.  Any admin who is 'routinely incivil' can
expect little support.

Charles


from_name: Andrew Lih

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

body:
On 5/29/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> What you seem to forget is that Wikipedia's strength rests with its
> amateurs.  While there may be evident need for some amount of
> administrative staff it is as important to avoid pretensions of being a
> professional organization.  If you look at staff as an investment you
> are assuming an economic model that runs contrary to Wikipedia's free
> nature.

But you can also make the case that getting professionals to do the
work that needs to be done (legal, finance, fundraising, etc.)
offloads those tasks so that the "strength of the amateurs" can be
more productively tapped and scaled up to keep Wikipedia evolving in
what it does best.

A lot of the problems with this (and many discussions on this list) is
the misguided goal of trying to find The Way, or the "universal truth"
as Delirium said, to do everything. Online or face to face? Amateur or
professional? Volunteer or paid position? Bottom up or top down?

"You must err on the side of disorganization, or all is lost!"

Someone once described this as the "tyranny of wiki-fundamentalism."
It's quite an accurate label. We should try moving beyond the
fundamental belief that building a great online virtual encyclopedia
automatically provides the formula for building a legally and
financially responsible organization.

<troll>
That said, it should be completely obvious to all that the new
Wikimedia headquarters should be in... Hawaii, home of the wikiwiki.
</troll>

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office


from_name: Philip Welch

body:
On May 29, 2006, at 4:13 AM, Conrad Dunkerson wrote:

> Look around at your fellow admins from time to time and ask
> yourself... is
> there ANY way this person could pass an RFA at this point? If the
> answer
> is 'no' then the de facto situation is that a person who does NOT
> have the
> support or respect of the community has powers which are only
> supposed to
> be held by those who DO... and that inherently breeds disruption and
> resentment and ongoing damage to Wikipedia as a whole.

Wikipedia admins are appointed for life (or at least until
resignation or disciplinary dismissal) for a very important reason--
they can't properly do their job if they have to worry about being re-
appointed or re-elected. Tenured professors and Supreme Court
justices fall under the same model for the same reason.

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


body:
* charles matthews wrote:

> Well then, where is objective evidence that the neighbourhood is going to
> hell?

See [[User:Katefan0]] and related.


from_name: Timwi

subject: [WikiEN-l] Template:spoiler

body:
> I wish there was at least a way to turn them off,

There is.

     div#spoiler { display:none; }

> but then again I usually don't log in

That would be a problem.


from_name: Berto

body:
Hi!

>Wikipedia's definitely enormously popular, and it has certainly
>managed to produce an enormous breadth of information.  The average
>quality, on the other hand, is mediocre, and I personally have serious
>doubts as to whether or not that's a situation that's correctable.

Quality is an issue, yet most people will believe Wikipedia anyway, just
because it's free and it's often the only available online information
source on a given subject. Doubts about quality, on the other side, may not
be referred to wikis only. It's a lot of sites on the net publishing pure
trash, and sometimes they even want money for you to read it...

I suppose the only answer is into trying to concentrate wiki growth towards
quality, instead of making it only a quantity matter. Yet, the internal
success mark (at the moment) still is limited to "how many articles you guys
got?". Until this internal perception does not change, there will be no
chance to improve quality.

Sometimes in the future this will probably develop into more complex
redactional structures, that will take care of analyzing and correcting wiki
content, at least for the main subjects. Some trends in that direction are
visible, still this cannot be done in full scale without spending money and
time.

B?rto

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


from_name: Joe Anderson

subject: [WikiEN-l] General Eisenhower

body:
[[User:General Eisenhower]] is in breach of [[WP:USERNAME]] where is states:

Names of VIPs or well-known historical figures ( e.g. Benjamin
Franklin<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin>;
> Chuck Norris <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Norris>).

On his userpage he claims

  I'm General and future president Eisenhower.

I requested he changed his username, as to which a poll was
started<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%253AGeneral_Eisenhower&diff=55756520&oldid=55755552>however.

According to GeorgeMoney, it was a bad faith nom : how is this?

Eisenhower said on my talk page: I am not changing my username. General
Eisenhower <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:General_Eisenhower> ? ( at war
or at peace <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:General_Eisenhower>)
15:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC).

He has not accepted he is in breach of policy, which he is. I am posting
here to seek other people's views (as per [[WP:USERNAME]]) and to possibly
make a namechange compulsory.

Eisenhower would normally have been given a username block, however he
slipped through the net to become fairly estabilished (albeit it not in the
main namespace), which makes it harder.

--
Joe Anderson

[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.


from_name: Nicholas Barry

subject: [Foundation-l] Help on activism

body:
Hello, all!

I have been working some on the Activism wiki (activism.wikia.com) on Wikia since it is too POV to be appropriate for Wikimedia.

We could really use some editors who are experienced.  Are any of you interested in contributing something?  Also, since there is almost no one active on the project now, we'll need some admins very soon.

Even if you are uninterested in helping edit, we'd really appreciate any helpful tips you can give on how the project could develop.  Also, if you have suggestions for where else we could look for editors on the project, those would be welcome as well.

If you have interest in the project, take a look at my user page: activism.wikia.com/wiki/User:Nabarry .  Leave a hello on my talk.

And thanks for all those who gave advice or guidance when I originally proposed the project.

 - Nicholas Barry


subject: [Foundation-l] Help on activism


subject: [WikiEN-l] Activism project

body:
   Hello, all!

I recently proposed an Activism project for the Wikimedia foundation, but the project as I had proposed it was POV.  Oops.  So now we're working on it on Wikia, and we could really use some editors who are experienced.  Are any of you interested in contributing something?  Also, since there is almost no one active on the project now, we'll need some admins very soon.

If you have some level of interest, you can check out the project at activism.wikia.com .  See my user profile (activism.wikia.com/wiki/User:Nabarry) for a grander vision of the project; see the Activism:Vox Populi page for some more practical, immediate changes that need to be made.

Even if you are uninterested in helping edit, we'd really appreciate any helpful tips you can give on how the project could develop.  Also, if you have suggestions for where else we could look for editors on the project, those would be welcome as well.

If you stop by, leave a hello on my talk.

 - Nicholas Barry  [input]  [input]


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] blatant state-sponsored copyright violations (by
 Baide Baiku of the PRC)

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

SCO Estmort stated for the record:

>>We can't fight China; it'd waste our time and they wouldn't even
>>notice. We're not magically endowed crusaders for truth and justice;
>>we're writers. Ripe targets are all well and good, but picking a fight
>>we can win should come before picking a fight that sounds good.
>
>
> The key thing is that we can win, and that is why they are ripe,
> because the copyright violation is so blatant.
>
> Otherwise, there'd be no point releasing Wikipedia under the GFDL; we
> might as well do it under the public domain. The key thing is to keep
> our material free.

Supposing for the moment that we won the most crushing victory in the
history of international jurisprudence ... what would we do if they just
ignored it?  Who do we call to enforce the judgment?  For some reason I
doubt that the State Department is going to send any sternly-worded
communiqu?s on our behalf, to say nothing of the likelihood that
Congress is going to impose any trade sanctions....

- --
 Sean Barrett     | "D'oh," said Pooh, trying to show
 sean at epoptic.com | his awareness of popular culture.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEe5tvMAt1wyd9d+URAgtjAJ4ogX1VNtURIckZhxuzhofyBgAmJACfUUZn
QkGY22DxKR6e+tKb/+agk34=
=mZye
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Conrad Dunkerson

body:
* James D. Forrester wrote:

> Charles was replying to you saying that the "neighbourhood is going to
> hell" due to too much power being given over to sysops and not enough to
> the community at large; I fail to see how highly distasteful (and
> illegal) off-wiki activity by banned users is of any relevance. Can we
> not get yet further distracted?

I was suggesting that PART of the reason for the excessive hatred directed
at Wikipedia and the admin community in particular are the actions of some
admins. The original poster said that a lost Wikipedia user can also be a
new anti-Wikipedia crusader. They're right. Obviously there will always be
people who are dis-satisfied and disruptive. But the fact is that we
sometimes go out of our way to antagonize them and it only makes things
worse. Wikipedia is becoming more and more a battleground (does anyone
disagree with that assessment?)... and in part that is because we no
longer treat the 'problem' users with as much respect as we once did. They
cause problems... sooner or later someone comes along and stomps them...
and instead of slowly learning to fit in or drifting away with mildly bad
feelings they gain an intense hatred of Wikipedia or those they see as the
'abusers'. It's a problem we are contributing to and ought to make more
concerted efforts to avoid.


from_name: Raphael Wegmann

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Unblock request - Critique on administrators is no
 personal attack

body:
Delirium wrote:
> Raphael Wegmann wrote:
>> geni wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/28/06, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Laws in the country, where I live, limit free speech.
>>>> For example it is forbidden to deny the Holocaust.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> And if that prevented us from writing about holocaust denial then we
>>> would have a problem in your country.
>>>
>>>
>> IANAL, but I don't think that this law would prevent me
>> from writing *about* Holocaust denial, as long as it is
>> clear, that I don't deny the Holocaust myself.
>>
>> The same should IMHO apply to the J-P cartoon article:
>>
>> There's no problem to write *about* insulting cartoons
>> and the controversy following it, as long as we distance
>> ourself from the publishing of the cartoons by i.e.
>> moving them one click away instead of re-publishing them
>> as we do right now.
>>
>
> Indeed the law doesn't prevent us from doing so, which is why it isn't a
> problem for Wikipedia (whether it's a good law or not is another matter,
> but one that doesn't affect us).  But your suggestion of not publishing
> the J-P cartoons isn't analogous to what we do with holocaust denial at
> all.  Our articles *do* republish statements, cartoons, posters, and
> other material denying that the Holocaust occurred, as part of a general
> encyclopedic treatment of the subject.  The article would be quite a bit
> worse if we were prohibited from republishing any material that could be
> considered Holocaust-denying, and had to just talk about it without
> showing any examples.  I would say the same goes of the J-P cartoons.
>

Are you serious?
Why do you think we have a separate article called Holocaust *denial*?

We don't merge those articles and state in the intro:

Supporters of the Holocaust theory have described it to be the end
product of the Nazi anti-Semitic policy and argue that the Germans
deliberately killed between five and six million Jews.

Critics of the Holocaust theory claim that the Nazi government had no
policy of deliberately targeting Jews and deny that over five million
Jews were systematically killed by the Nazis and their allies.

Instead we even state in the "Holocaust denial" article, that Holocaust
denial is generally considered an anti-semitic conspiracy theory.

Yes, Wikipedia publishes anti-Semitic cartoons as well, but they
are published on the article about "anti-Semitism" resp.
"new anti-Semitism". I wouldn't complain about publishing the
J-P cartoons on the Islamophobia article.

--
Raphael


body:
I'd say, that there is a little thing you overlooked:
The cartoons are not just portrayals of Mohammed,
they are a pejorative portrayals.

--
Raphael

A. Nony Mouse wrote:
> ACTUALLY, historically speaking and in most islamic traditions, it's no big
> deal. There have been many and varied portrayals of Mohammed through the
> centuries. Some have no problem with his portrayal, some insist that
> portrayals must either blank or shield his face, some insist that only
> Mohammed may not be depicted, and some - like the nutjobs who love to throw
> paint over billboards advertising women's cosmetics - insist that the
> portrayal of ANY human face is blasphemy.
>
> But little things like the truth rarely get in the way of the ravings of
> religious nutjobs, of course.
>
> A. Nony Mouse
>
> On 5/28/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>> No, they won't be, creating an image of Mohammed is generally
>> prohibited and sacrilegious.
>>
>> Fred
>>
>> On May 28, 2006, at 5:28 PM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:
>>
>>> Do you think, that the cartoons would ever be shown in a mosque?
>> _______________________________________________


body:
"Conrad Dunkerson"  wrote

> Admins are appointed by the community... and when the police lose the
> support of the people they are policing they generally get replaced... or
> the neighborhood goes to hell.

Well then, where is objective evidence that the neighbourhood is going to
hell?  I don't mean general bitching.  I mean evidence that vandals sweep
through Wikipedia, or edit wars take over.

I know where to look for entirely credible evidence of people who would like
to see admin powers diminished to the point of ineffectiveness, and to have
admins looking constantly over their shoulders at what the People's
Commissar might be thinking.

This thread was started on the proposition about imbalance 'between the user
rights and admin privileges'.  It is really not the same question, whether
unpopular admins should still be in the job.  Note that correcting the
purported imbalance would affect all admins, righteous and popular or not.

En-WP's Arbitrators have been quite prepared to de-sysop people.  But
relatively few cases have been brought on that, which stand up at all.  And
numerous which look like general attempts to pressurise admins who are doing
just what they should be.

Charles


from_name: Will "Sceptre" Noble

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Aww, so cute,
	a banned user is trying to take us down with a DMCA notice
	(Forwarded email)

body:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Pce3 at ij.net <pce3 at ij.net>
Date: May 29, 2006 7:42 PM
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
To: Sceptre <sceptre at tintower.co.uk>

Wikimedia Foundation Web Site Takedown Notice

The copyright owner herein provides notice to the Wikimedia Foundation in
accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to remove or disable
access to the web pages listed below:

1.) Name, address, and electronic signature of the complaining party
[512(c)(3)(A)(i)]

Patrick Eberhart, 1911 E Clinton St, Tampa, Florida 33610

Pce3 at ij.net Wikipedia User ID 1219911

2.) The infringing materials and their Internet location
[512(c)(3)(A)(ii-iii)], or if the service provider is an "information
location tool" such as a search engine, the reference or link to the
infringing materials [512(d)(3)].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimal_classification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Optimal_classification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Chart_Method_of_Logical_Equation_Reduction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harvard_Chart_Method_of_Logical_Equation_Reduction

3.) Sufficient information to identify the copyrighted works
[512(c)(3)(A)(iv)].

3.a.) Optimal classification and Talk:Optimal classifcation

3.b.) Harvard Chart Method of Logical Equation Reduction and Talk: Harvard
Chart Method of Logical Equation Reduction

4.) Statement by the owner that he has a good faith belief that there is no
legal basis for the use of the materials complained of [512(c)(3)(A)(v)].

4.a) I belief that the Wikimedia foundation has no legal basis for use of
the materials cited above against my stated will and instructions and
withdrawal of any and all prior permissions. ? Patrick Eberhart

5.) A statement of the accuracy of the notice and, under penalty of perjury,
that the complaining party is authorized to act on the behalf of the owner
[512(c)(3)(A)(vi)].

5.a) The information contained herein is accurate to the best of my
knowledge. I am the author and owner of the above cited material. ?Patrick
Eberhart

The Wikimedia Foundation is hereafter required to expeditiously remove, or
disable access to the material.

--
-Sceptre
http://tintower.co.uk


body:
Will "Sceptre" Noble wrote:
> Raphael, if the images affect you so much, why not use monobook to hide that
> image?

Because it is not the images which affect me, it is the way Wikipedia
publishes them. I could certainly close my eyes and pretend they don't
exist, but that wouldn't change anything.

@Selina:
Yes, I am trying to add decency to this project and (more importantly)
I don't want that project to fail in becoming an intercultural
encyclopedia. Unfortunately I'm getting the impression, that
my efforts aren't appreciated. If you prefer to write an indecent
encyclopedia, where editors of a "foreign" faith or culture aren't
welcome, just say so and I won't bother you again.

--
Raphael


body:
Assuming you could actually win a judgement against the government,
they have substantial assets in the United States. Expect them to
claim that they have nothing to do with Baide Baiku though. Baide
Baikul likely has no assets in the US.

Fred

On May 29, 2006, at 7:10 PM, Sean Barrett wrote:

> Supposing for the moment that we won the most crushing victory in the
> history of international jurisprudence ... what would we do if they
> just
> ignored it?  Who do we call to enforce the judgment?  For some
> reason I
> doubt that the State Department is going to send any sternly-worded
> communiqu?s on our behalf, to say nothing of the likelihood that
> Congress is going to impose any trade sanctions....


from_name: Walter van Kalken

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
>
>>--- Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It's more the opposite: I consider in-person meetings of such low value
>>>that they are not worth going out of my way to attend or send someone to
>>>attend.  This is not 1930; internet projects for decades now have been
>>>coordinated solely by means of the internet.
>>>
>>>
>>In person meetings may be of low value to you, but I've found them to be extremely productive
>>compared to email/IRC or even phone. For example, we accomplished more in a single weekend during
>>the January face-to-face meeting of all the board members and most of the officers than we did in
>>the six months prior to that.
>>
>>
>
>That is absolutely right.  A LOT can be done face to face which is
>difficult or impossible online.
>
>
>
>
That is very correct. When you meet people things get done easier than
any of the substitutes for a face to face meeting. It is one of the
things I miss a lot in my interaction with fellow wikimedians!

Waerth/Walter

>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office


from_name: Mark Williamson

body:
Did you read this thread? Baidu is traded on NASDAQ.

On 29/05/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> Assuming you could actually win a judgement against the government,
> they have substantial assets in the United States. Expect them to
> claim that they have nothing to do with Baide Baiku though. Baide
> Baikul likely has no assets in the US.
>
> Fred
>
> On May 29, 2006, at 7:10 PM, Sean Barrett wrote:
>
> > Supposing for the moment that we won the most crushing victory in the
> > history of international jurisprudence ... what would we do if they
> > just
> > ignored it?  Who do we call to enforce the judgment?  For some
> > reason I
> > doubt that the State Department is going to send any sternly-worded
> > communiqu?s on our behalf, to say nothing of the likelihood that
> > Congress is going to impose any trade sanctions....
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
Gavin Chait wrote:

>The most immediate concern for the Wiki Foundation is less the idea of an
>office with furniture and windows, or even the difficulties of
>collaboration, mostly it is continuity.
>
>At the moment the founders are involved.  They have an idea of what they
>want and how to achieve that.  There are now thousands of regular
>contributors who are influencing that direction.  There are millions of
>occasional contributors who muddy the edges.  How do you ensure continuity?
>
This is a question with profound implications.  Accomodating these
segments of our society without losing focus is no trivial problem.

>One of the first development organisations I worked in 15 years ago was a
>student-run endeavour at the University of Cape Town.  Every year hundreds
>of students volunteer and contribute to different projects.  Each project is
>run by older students.  Continuity is difficult where students graduate and
>leave each year.  Sometimes entire projects vanish when the students who
>know how to run them fail to come back.
>
Students enrolled in a programme of finite duration are more likely to
make provision for their successors.  If a project vanishes when they
leave maybe it has outlived its value.  Our senior people are here for
an indefinite period, and may find it more difficult to envision their
project mortality.

>The solution was to employ a small band of professionals whose task is to
>make sure that projects are properly budgeted and accounted for, keep track
>of how the different projects interact, and ensure that the overall emphasis
>of the organisation remains focused.  The professionals ensure consistency
>while the volunteers contribute fresh ideas, fresh thinking, new directions
>and lots of enthusiasm.
>
>It has worked well for more than 50 years for this organisation.
>
>Offices are far less important than continuity.  And the more you rely on
>volunteers, the more important it is to have a solid base of professionals -
>where-ever they may be.
>
Your conclusion is well taken.  But before this can happen there needs
to be a fundamental understanding about the role of the professional and
the role of the volunteer.  Larry Sanger was good for Wikipedia at the
time that he was here, but someone like him would be totally unsuitable
to the present circumstances.  Decisions often _must_ be made without
waiting around debating like the Paris Commune.  The questions that then
arise are What do we want our professional to do?  What do we want him
not to do?

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


body:
On 5/29/06, Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.dunkerson at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> * charles matthews wrote:
>
> > Well then, where is objective evidence that the neighbourhood is going to
> > hell?
>
> See [[User:Katefan0]] and related.

See [[Wikipedia:List_of_administrators#Inactive]] we always lose
admins. Somehow we muddel through.

--
geni


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

body:
--- Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/29/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> >
> > What you seem to forget is that Wikipedia's strength rests with its
> > amateurs.  While there may be evident need for some amount of
> > administrative staff it is as important to avoid pretensions of being a
> > professional organization.  If you look at staff as an investment you
> > are assuming an economic model that runs contrary to Wikipedia's free
> > nature.
>
> But you can also make the case that getting professionals to do the
> work that needs to be done (legal, finance, fundraising, etc.)
> offloads those tasks so that the "strength of the amateurs" can be
> more productively tapped and scaled up to keep Wikipedia evolving in
> what it does best.

Exactly. The amateur model just does not scale well *at all* for the Wikimedia Foundation
(Wikipedia and the other wikis are a different matter). I, for example, am an amateur when it
comes to finance. My day job and education have nothing to do with it. And yet I'm the CFO. Which
may have been fine when Wikipedia was a top 500 website and had a small budget, but not now.

I'm a quick learner and always have been able to handle widely varied responsibilities that
require different skill sets (thus my ability, with the help of the Wikimedia treasurer who does
have the relevant experience and training, to perform in my role), but there simply is a limit to
what I can do; both from a time perspective (I can only devote an hour or two - at most - a day to
this) AND, perhaps more importantly, from an experience/education perspective.

That is why I've had a standing letter of resignation that will go into effect once the foundation
finally gets around to hiring a properly qualified finance director.

The foundation is not a wiki. It needs to grow up.

-- mav

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


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office


from_name: Samuel Klein

subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
On Tue, 30 May 2006, Anthere wrote:

> Jimbo says
>
> "... nous souhaitons g?n?rer une version
> ? stable ? des articles, v?rifi?e et approuv?e par des experts sur le
> sujet, tout en maintenant la possibilit? de le modifier. Il est hors de
> question de demander aux b?n?voles de faire le plus gros du travail, et
> de  demander ? un expert de peaufiner le rest."
>
> Translation
>
> "We wish to create a stable version of all articles, checked and
> approved by experts on the topic, whilst keeping the option of
> modification of the article. It is excluded to ask volunteers to do most
> of the bulk work, and to ask to an expert to just take care of the
> polishing".
>
> What was meant here ?

I don't know, but experts are volunteers too, something most of the world
constantly forgets.  We need a list of contributors who are experts -- divided
into those who contribute in their field of expertise, and those who avoid that
like the plague.

Sj


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


from_name: Peter Ansell

body:
On 5/29/06, Nick Boalch <n.g.boalch at durham.ac.uk> wrote:
> The community giveth, and the community taketh away -- but it taketh
> away under the auspices of proper consideration by the arbitration
> committee, not by having unpopular admins strung up by a baying lynchmob.
>

The community has no power to take away, other admins are the only
ones who have any power to take away rights, and the threat of being
told not to wheel war seems to be stopping admins from making hard
decisions about other admins.

Peter Ansell


from_name: Nick Boalch

body:
On Mon, 29 May 2006, Fred Bauder wrote:
[snip]
> Our administrators are not police officers.

You're right, it would be overly simplistic and inaccurate to characterise
administrators as police. However, we do have duties on the Wiki that
could be described as 'enforcement' -- copyright violations, speedy
deletions, blocking, enaction of ArbCom rulings.

All of these duties are things that are quite capable of pissing people
off however polite the administrator is.

> I see no problem with requiring them to be reaffirmed every 2 years or
> so. If they are unpleasant that is reason enough not to reaffirm them.

I do. One can do things without being unpleasant that nevertheless make
you unpopular. Look at the administrators who have been vilified
for attempting in all good faith to deal with the userbox problem.

Cheers,

N.

--
Nicholas Boalch
School of Modern Languages & Cultures       Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3456
University of Durham                        Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421
New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK               WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/


list: commons-l

from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Commons-l] Chinese on Commons

body:
While browsing in my Special:Preferences today, I noticed that we
apparently support no less than five variants of Chinese:

zh
zh-cn (simplified, as used by the Chinese mainland)
zh-hk (traditional)
zh-sg (simplified)
zh-tw (traditional)

In translating the Commons namespace pages and templates, we seem to
most commonly have zh-hans and zh-hant, corresponding to simplified
and traditional characters. I think the "han" is to qualify the
language as Mandarin (also known as Hanyu, literally the language of
the Hans) rather than, say, Cantonese (zh-yue) or any other variety of
Chinese. I have noticed that people seem to have stopped using zh-tw
and zh-cn. Which makes sense: the country distinction is not what's
important in this choice. AFAIK there are no major differences between
Chinese as written in mainland China and Singapore, so I don't know
why we offer that distinction.

I don't even know why we still have people doing the man-hours of
'translating' between traditional and simplified when zh.wp is, after
all, using some automatic converter. Should we ask for it to be
installed for Commons? I don't know why it wasn't in the first
place... I have a small suspicion that the traditional folks enjoy
maintaining their translations, why is why no one's raised the issue,
but it's just a hunch.

Any thoughts?

Brianna (user:pfctdayelise)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Userbox policy achieved?

body:
On 5/29/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/29/06, Nick Boalch <n.g.boalch at durham.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Molu wrote:
> > ['Userbox: namespace]
> > > Are we finally at the end of the road? Or will this policy also get
> > > rejected as no consensus?
> >
> > I don't particularly want to bring the ongoing userbox debate onto here
> > as well, but: yes, hopefully it will be rejected. Lending a false sense
> > of legitimacy to userboxes is clearly a Bad Thing.
>
> What's this in relation to? I haven't seen any discussion of a userbox
> name space?
>
> For what it's worth, I realised today the true worth of userboxes.
> There was a comment made in a project-space debate that could have
> been either insightful or simply peanut-gallery stuff. Not knowing
> which it was, I checked the user's page. Several hundred userboxes!
> That made it so much easier to ignore his comment with a clear
> conscience.
>
> Steve

Why did you want to ignore any comment that you thought could have
been insightful? Thats like saying words dont matter its only who says
them. I think participants in a community should work of trying to see
the best in others comments.

Peter Ansell


subject: [WikiEN-l] Quasi-protection policy proposal

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
>
> How about the same trust model that Advogato uses?

I'm sure it is somewhat obvious to you that the only people who can
reply to this meaningfully are those who know Advogato. How many mailing
list participants might that include?


from_name: James D. Forrester

body:
Conrad Dunkerson wrote:

> * charles matthews wrote:
>
> > Well then, where is objective evidence that the neighbourhood is going to
> > hell?
>
> See [[User:Katefan0]] and related.

Charles was replying to you saying that the "neighbourhood is going to
hell" due to too much power being given over to sysops and not enough to
the community at large; I fail to see how highly distasteful (and
illegal) off-wiki activity by banned users is of any relevance. Can we
not get yet further distracted?

Yours,
--
James D. Forrester
Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
E-Mail    : james at jdforrester.org
IM (MSN)  : jamesdforrester at hotmail.com


body:
Nick Boalch wrote:

> On Mon, 29 May 2006, Fred Bauder wrote:
 >
> > I see no problem with requiring them to be reaffirmed every 2 years or
> > so. If they are unpleasant that is reason enough not to reaffirm them.
>
> I do. One can do things without being unpleasant that nevertheless make
> you unpopular. Look at the administrators who have been vilified
> for attempting in all good faith to deal with the userbox problem.

Indeed. I have grave doubts that a confirmation system would be anything
other than absolutely disasterous, at least in the short term, to the
wikilove principle in favour of which it's apparently being proposed
(let alone the actual practical functioning of the site).

Yours sincerely,
--
James D. Forrester
Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
E-Mail    : james at jdforrester.org
IM (MSN)  : jamesdforrester at hotmail.com


from_name: Mark Gallagher

body:
G'day Nick,

> Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
>
>>Please *don't* just use the GFDL for photos. Use a Creative Commons
>>Attribution license instead of, or together with the GFDL.
>
> Why?

Because the GFDL is bloody awful.  CC-BY-SA gives all the advantages, to
both content creators and users, without the unnecessary overhead and
the strange feeling that one ought to be frothing at the mouth and
bad-mouthing "Micro$oft" that always occurs when one attempts to use the
GFDL.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:BLP and George M. von Furstenberg

body:
G'day Molu,

[top-posting fixed.  Again.]

> On Sun, 28 May 2006 20:44:50 -0700 (PDT) Joseph Hiegel wrote:
>
>> Yesterday a user posted to ANI requesting that excisions be made
>> from the >edit history of a biographical article in order that
>> information troubling to the >subject should be removed.
>
> We can't do that really. Just drop the person a polite note
> explaining that while we respect his right to privacy, we are an
> encyclopedia and it's our job to provide information. It is
> unfortunately not possible for us to remove verifiable information
> based on such considerations. This is a sensitive issue and care
> needs to be taken. But ultimately, we really can't put the interests
> of the subject over those of the encyclopedia.

Nonsense.  If there is an edit, which is soundly rejected, and which
contains objectionable material, there's nothing wrong with deleting
that edit from the history.

We should not be removing things from the article merely because the
subject doesn't want them said.  However, if we agree that something
should not be said, and the subject wants it removed from the history
... so be it.  Imagine if we had caught the Siegenthaler (have I spelled
it right yet?) vandalism quickly, and reverted it ... then Mr
Siegenthaler came across the article later and read through the history,
and asked that we delete particularly disturbing cases of vandalism.
There is nothing wrong with that.

If this is not such a case, weeeell, we can't help him.  But "we don't
do that sort of thing" is wrong, both in theory and practice.

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


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [WikiEN-l] Userbox policy achieved?

body:
On 5/29/06, Molu <loom91 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>   There has been a poll for a userbox policy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:May_Userbox_policy_poll#Poll...

I think that the fact that it's called "the May poll" indicates just
how effective it's going to be.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Molu

subject: [WikiEN-l] To: Jimmy Wales - Admin-driven death of WIkipedia

body:
So you are saying Guerdlam's accusations are actually true? In that case it is a cause for concern! If a certain admin will not pass a RfA today, he has no buisness whatsoever bieng an admin. An admin is a person who has been entrusted with some additional abilities by the community because he is trusted to make good use of them and entrusting those abilities to all users has too much potential for disruption.

  If however an admin ceases to be popular within the community, that means he has overstayed his welcome and immediately needs to be kicked out, call it a lynchmob if you will. An admin is a janitor, not the member of some elite aristocracy and if they perform actions unpopular to the majority of the community then they are abusing their powers.

  molu

    On Mon, 29 May 2006 12:36:51 +0100 Nick Boalch wrote:

>I don't think that is a particularly fair test. As is obvious, admins
>are occasionally called upon to perform actions that upset people -- I
>don't think admins should shrink from making those hard choices.

>I can think of several thoroughgoingly solid admins, people who temper a
>good knowledge of policy with a healthy dose of knowing that what we're
>here to do is write an encyclopaedia, who I doubt would pass an RfA
>because they've done things that have made them controversial or
>unpopular in certain sectors of the community.

>The community giveth, and the community taketh away -- but it taketh
>away under the auspices of proper consideration by the arbitration
>committee, not by having unpopular admins strung up by a baying lynchmob.

>Cheers,

>N.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Everyone is raving about the  all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.