from_name: sannse

subject: [WikiEN-l] Acount Irate

body:
Theresa Knott wrote:
> I've unblocked you but take heed. The _only_ reason i unblocked you is
> because anthony wasn't blocked. You violated the 3RR and so did
> desearve the block  - note that the three reverts are in a 24 hour
> period - so if you revert the night before and again the next morining
> you may break the rule without really realising it.
>
> I know you were restoring the consensus version, I know that
> sockpuppets were used - but there is no need for you to revert war.
> Do your three reverts and then step back from the article - I assure
> you that someone else will take up the reigns because as the votes on
> the talk page there is an overwhelming majority in favour of having
> the picture.

I think it should be noted that another user was blocked earlier for
breaking the 3RR while Irate wasn't, despite many reverts on /both/
sides.  There may have been other reasons to block the other user but it
was the 3RR that was quoted.  Irate should really have been warned and
(if necessary) blocked at this time.

I didn't activate the block when I noticed because Irate hadn't been
warned and because he evidently felt that the revert was of simple
vandalism.  (I agree that Irate was following consensus, but that
doesn't make the other person's edits simple vandalism - this was
clearly a content dispute).  If Irate had broken the rule after I warned
him and pointed him towards the relevant vandalism policies then I would
have blocked him (and the same for Anthony of course).

All this isn't to pick a fight, it's just to say that we must be fair
about this - as Teresa says, it's important to be even handed in using
this rule.

--sannse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.4 - Release Date: 30/11/04


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: steven l. rubenstein

subject: [WikiEN-l] original research

body:
I think the policy "no original research" is one of our most important
policies, and essential to the integrity of our project as an
encyclopedia.  Recently Jimbo pointed out that the policy was originally
developed to deal with physics cranks, but that it could apply to history
as well -- but perhaps, with some difficulty.  I agree that the policy
should apply to all forms of research.  I've been thinking about the way
the policy is formulated and think it can be improved.  I have mad ea
suggestion on the talk page, and I'd appreciate comments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#On_secondary_sources

I am very confident of the substantive point I am trying to make, but less
confident about the wording.  Whether I am right or wrong, this issue
requires some debate now because a number of people have expressed
confusion about our policy,

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701


list: wikitech-l

from_name: vic

subject: [Wikitech-l] New Security model to work on REL1.4

body:
Hi ...
I am very interested on the new security model (developed by hashar i
think), as
the one listed on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:User_levels
Are this implemented on REL1.4 (i dont think so).
Are you planning to implement on final 1.4 ?
Where are more documentation about this module ??? what pages are being
used ?
i would like to cooperate on this subject.
This enhance is critical to my wiki.

thanks

--
Problems with Windows - Reboot.
Problems with Linux   - Be root.

Vic (aKa CoffMan)
vic at wickle.com
wickle at gmail.com


list: foundation-l

from_name: Mathias Schindler

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikinews Licensing

body:
Robin Shannon wrote:
> Well i have contributed 2 articles to wikinews so far, and one of them
> i lifted (more or less) straight from wikipedia (from an article that
> was written about 5 minutes before i sat down to write). I can think
> that there would be plenty of times when lifting a paragraph or so
> from wikipedia would be useful in wikinews. Hence while i would like
> it to be PD, i think that GFDL (provided that becomes CC-BY-SA
> complient sometime) would be the most practical.

Yesterday, ddp, a medium sized news agency copied [[de:Misshandlung]]
from wikipedia 1:1 and sent it over their channel. They didn't even try
to stick to the GNU FDL and it took me some time to explain copyright to
them.

I will not participate in a PD wikinews that does not ensure that free
text remains free. CC-BY-SA does not block newspapers from using the
content and because of the <buzzword>synergy</buzzword> hopes regarding
wikipedia, i suggest a dual licensing of GFDL and CC-BY-SA (keeping in
mind that these two should merge some day...)

Mathias


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikinews Licensing


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: How to destroy the good morning I had...

body:
Robin Shannon wrote:
> A frigging MEN. Ive never understood why these so called 'tough jocks'
> need to wear a metre worth of padding.
>
> btw, the last paragraph is a bit confusing;
>
> But on the less-than-bright side ... these really are the best and
> brightest of humanity. They've got DSL. And grammar. And encyclopedic,
> albeit utterly useless, depths of knowledge. It's horrible, but true:
> when ekOeOfhOpe and dArK_RaVeN and Sparky and Evercat are found
> rotting in their apartments, it will be their inferiors who have
> repopulated the earth in their own sweaty image. Ooh. Not so chipper
> anymore.

In case you were wondering what "chipper" means, urbandictionary.com
gives this insightful definition:

3. Chipper

Some weird mood choice on LiveJournal that nobody really understands
until they look it up.

Hmm, how am I feeling today? ...Chipper...? Whatthefuck is Chipper? Haha
oh well it sounds cool I'ma choose that.

...That's right I just said "I'ma".
Source: Sarah G, Nov 26, 2004


from_name: Jens Ropers

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikinews Licensing

references:
<9M4hMJqxpVB@erik_moeller>
	<E4FA3AE0-44C4-11D9-A259-0003931DCE20@ropersonline.com>
	<20041203104235.GA12574@thingy.apana.org.au>

body:
On 3 Dec 2004, at 11:42, David Gerard wrote:

> Jens Ropers (ropers at ropersonline.com) [041203 11:47]:
>
>> (1)
>> While WP compatibility might seem like a real important and convenient
>> thing, IMHO coming to that conclusion is fallacious (as in [[logical
>> fallacy]]):
>> - WP compatibility is pretty much only needed if people want to
>> DUPLICATE (ie. not rewrite) content from the WP.
>> - Wikinews was was expressly advertised as a project that would NOT
>> simply duplicate WP content.
>> Thus, I believe the "requirement" for WP license compatibility is much
>> less than one might think.
>
>
> I'd disagree, actually. Have you noticed how a breaking news story
> article
> comes together on Wikipedia? It's like seeing a newsmagazine feature
> being
> composed before your eyes. And a lot of stuff on wikinews-l is actually
> newsmagazine-quality writing, not necessarily simple-grammar
> inverted-pyramid newspaper-style information. So I think a lot of the
> stuff
> on wikinews, we really will want to just copy from Wikinews to
> Wikipedia.

And you can do just that.

If Wikinews stays in the public domain, then you CAN simply copy
content from Wikinews to the Wikipedia.
What you may not be able to do easily (i.e. w/o checking with all
relevant contributors) is copy content from the Wikipedia to Wikinews.

-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]]
     www.ropersonline.com


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikinews Licensing


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikinews Licensing

body:
Aaargh. No, kill me, actually, for replying to your prev post just now.
When going through these posts "latest first", I should consider that
the question may already have been answered later in the queue.

--ropers

On 3 Dec 2004, at 11:57, David Gerard wrote:

> David Gerard (fun at thingy.apana.org.au) [041203 21:45]:
>> Jens Ropers (ropers at ropersonline.com) [041203 11:47]:
>
>>> (1)
>>> While WP compatibility might seem like a real important and
>>> convenient
>>> thing, IMHO coming to that conclusion is fallacious (as in [[logical
>>> fallacy]]):
>>> - WP compatibility is pretty much only needed if people want to
>>> DUPLICATE (ie. not rewrite) content from the WP.
>>> - Wikinews was was expressly advertised as a project that would NOT
>>> simply duplicate WP content.
>>> Thus, I believe the "requirement" for WP license compatibility is
>>> much
>>> less than one might think.
>
>> I'd disagree, actually. Have you noticed how a breaking news story
>> article
>> comes together on Wikipedia? It's like seeing a newsmagazine feature
>> being
>> composed before your eyes. And a lot of stuff on wikinews-l is
>> actually
>> newsmagazine-quality writing, not necessarily simple-grammar
>> inverted-pyramid newspaper-style information. So I think a lot of the
>> stuff
>> on wikinews, we really will want to just copy from Wikinews to
>> Wikipedia.
>
>
> I should of course read before writing. (I plead a severely
> sleep-deprived
> week of on-call.) You are of course talking about WP->WN, not the
> other way
> around.
>
> kiiillllll meeeeee. But give me coffee first.  (Caffeine is *not* a
> substitute for sheep.)
>
>
> - d.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikinews Licensing


subject: [Foundation-l] phone numbers (was Setting up Wikinews languages)

body:
On 3 Dec 2004, at 12:15, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

> but you weren't
> on irc and I didn't have a phone number for you, and she was on a
> deadline.)

Would it be a good idea to set up some restricted access shared
Wikipedian telephone directory, where people can opt to give their
phone number and hrs of "reachability" and time zone? The directory
probably should only be readable by registered Wikipedians who give
their own phone number as well.

Do people think that's a nutty idea or does something along these lines
possibly make sense?

-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]]
     www.ropersonline.com


list: wikipedia-l

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] FW: [Ticket#: 105515] Wikipedia - Concept and Mind
	Maps

body:
Careful there.
[[en:Tony Buzan]] may hold associated copyrights, patents and/or
trademarks.
Not sure though; just a caveat.

-- ropers

On 2 Dec 2004, at 17:12, Houchin, Cecil wrote:

> Dear Wikipedia Support Team,
>
> Have you ever thought of adding software that would allow the
> development of
> concept and mind maps within Wikipedia?  I believe that concept and
> mind
> mapping are concise and efficient ways to display information and their
> associations. I think it would add tremendous value to your site.
>
> A web site with examples of concept and mind maps can be found at:
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
>
> The following websites may also help if your interested:
> http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/scholonto/summary.html
> http://users.edte.utwente.nl/lanzing/cm_home.htm
> http://www.macrovu.com/VLBkExmplPgsMenu.html
> http://www.triz-journal.com/archives/2001/01/c/index.htm
>
> Thank you for Wikipedia,
> Cecil Houchin
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikipedia information team [mailto:info-en at wikimedia.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 4:11 PM
> To: Houchin, Cecil
> Subject: [Ticket#: 105515] Wikipedia - Concept and Mind Maps
>
>
> Dear Cecil Houchin,
>
> Thank you for your mail.
>
>> Have you ever thought of adding software that would allow the
>> development of concept and mind maps within Wikipedia?  I believe that
>> information mapping tools would add tremendous value to your site.
>
> As you may know, Wikimedia projects are written and maintained solely
> by
> volunteers - both on the technical side and the actual content.  Your
> suggestion sounds like something our technical volunteers would be
> interested in hearing more about.  You might be interested in
> introducing
> your ideas on one of our mailing lists.
>
> Our general information page on the mailing lists is at:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_list
>
> In particular the technical mailing list may be of use:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
> The general Wikipedia list is also very active:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
> Thanks for your kind words about Wikipedia,
>
> Regards,
>
> Lisa Cushway
> Wikimedia support team
>
> --
> Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: KNOTT, T

subject: [WikiEN-l] Acount Irate

body:
>There may have been other reasons to block the other user but it
>was the 3RR that was quoted.  Irate should really have been warned and
>(if necessary) blocked at this time.

You are right Sannse but the other users were clearly  sockpuppets. If
this ever happens again we should treat sockpuppets as we would vandals
- warn (just to be sure) then block. We should put "sockpuppet" as the
reason for the block and the block should either be indefinite or long
term to stop the user trying to use that particular sockpuppet again. I
think I am correct in stating that the autoblock will block the IP of
the sockpuppet for 24 hours as well so that will probably get who ever
is behind the sockpuppet as well, which should slow them down.

This is going to be a tricky policy to implement, Admins are going to
have to be very very careful to be fair and be seen to be fair. Theresa


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Original research

body:
As a person who is prone to original research, I think you have it about
right. To put together an article using references from published material
is not original research. Advancing ideas that you can find no published
source for is. If you are doing it you generally know it.

Fred

> From: Zoney <zoney.ie at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: Zoney <zoney.ie at gmail.com>, English Wikipedia
> <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 15:03:57 +0000
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Original research
>
> I would think that valid Wikipedia articles can indeed be considered
> "original research" by others outside Wikipedia, as articles should
> arise from the gathering of information from various sources (a
> process called research?) with the result of an article unique to
> Wikipedia.
>
> On Wikipedia though, the term has been hijacked to some degree to
> include a much narrower category of work - namely those consisting of
> original conclusions, original theories, etc. By and large though,
> such work falls into a category that common sense would dictate
> shouldn't be on Wikipedia, for the reasons outlined by Jimbo.
>
> I think this is probably the reason for any confusion over the term
> "original research". I could be wrong of course!
>
> Zoney
>
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 02:34:03 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales <jwales at wikia.com>
> wrote:
>> The phrase orginated primarily as a practical means to deal with
>> physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the web.
>>
>> The basic concept is as follows: it can be quite difficult for us to
>> make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is _true_ or
>> not.  It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether
>> someone's novel theory of physics is valid, we aren't really equipped
>> to do that.  But what we _can_ do is check whether or not it actually
>> has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers.
>> So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by
>> simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people
>> much better equipped to decide.
>>
>> The exact same principle will hold true for history, though I suppose
>> the application will in some cases be a bit different and more subtle.
>>
>>
>>
>> apw at ap-woolrich.co.uk wrote:
>>> Hi everyone, I have been following the this thread with interest,
>>> but am confused as to to what the term 'original research' means. As
>>> a writer of history I take it to mean searching the literature and
>>> archives and writing a new, properly referenced, article about topic
>>> which may well not have appeared in any other place than
>>> Wikipedia. Certainly there is a great deal in my field which is not
>>> to be found anywhere on the Web, and Wikipedia is an excellent means
>>> of getting it there.
>>
>> Suppose for example you've come up with a novel historical theory
>> which appears in no peer reviewed journals and which is contradicted
>> by prominent authorities in the field, and you prove your theory
>> through original research into primary sources, archives, etc.
>>
>> I am thinking of a particular example, and I'll give that to
>> illustrate my point.  Michael Bellesiles published a book by a
>> reputable publisher in 2000 with the surprising thesis that contrary
>> to popular understanding, guns were quite rare in the early years of
>> the United States.  This book generated a firestorm of controversy and
>> it was later determined by an outside panel of investigators hired by
>> his University to investigate fraud charges that he was "guilty of
>> unprofessional and misleading work".
>>
>> It took a fair amount of time (2 years) for this process to work
>> itself out, and juding the validity of Bellesiles claims involved a
>> lot of scholarly work *of the type that we are poorly equipped to
>> carry out*.
>>
>> Suppose Bellesiles had attempted to publish his novel historical
>> thesis at wikipedia, rather than in traditional primary sources?  We
>> would quite properly have rejected it as original research, because we
>> are ill-equipped to judge the validity of such things.
>>
>>> If we are going to have a blanket ban on 'original research' we ought
>>> to be more precise as to what it actually means, perhaps re-wording
>>> the phrase. Any ideas?
>>
>> I think the phrase is just fine, but I do agree with you that we need
>> to explore more carefully what it means.  In many cases, the
>> distinction between original research and synthesis of published work
>> will require thoughtful editorial judgment.
>>
>> --Jimbo
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>
> --
> ~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Mamma Mia

subject: [Wikipedia-l] New language introduction

body:
I'll try my bit. Hopefully, I'll convince a few more friends to join me in
promoting our region and its language/culture.

----- Original Message -----
From: <daniwo59 at aol.com>
To: <wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org>
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] New language introduction

> In a message dated 03/12/2004 01:16:02 Eastern Standard Time,
> dinganie at yahoo.co.uk writes:
> won't
> bore you with Malawi politics but you get the idea.
> Actually, we are looking forward to seeing the information about Malawi
and
> neighboring countries grow as a result of the addition of a Tumbuka
Wikipedia.
> Please add what you can to the English Wikipedia as well about this part
of
> the wolrd where, admittedly, our coverage is lacking.
>
> Danny
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Zoney

subject: [WikiEN-l] Original research

body:
I would think that valid Wikipedia articles can indeed be considered
"original research" by others outside Wikipedia, as articles should
arise from the gathering of information from various sources (a
process called research?) with the result of an article unique to
Wikipedia.

On Wikipedia though, the term has been hijacked to some degree to
include a much narrower category of work - namely those consisting of
original conclusions, original theories, etc. By and large though,
such work falls into a category that common sense would dictate
shouldn't be on Wikipedia, for the reasons outlined by Jimbo.

I think this is probably the reason for any confusion over the term
"original research". I could be wrong of course!

Zoney

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 02:34:03 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> The phrase orginated primarily as a practical means to deal with
> physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the web.
>
> The basic concept is as follows: it can be quite difficult for us to
> make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is _true_ or
> not.  It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether
> someone's novel theory of physics is valid, we aren't really equipped
> to do that.  But what we _can_ do is check whether or not it actually
> has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers.
> So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by
> simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people
> much better equipped to decide.
>
> The exact same principle will hold true for history, though I suppose
> the application will in some cases be a bit different and more subtle.
>
>
>
> apw at ap-woolrich.co.uk wrote:
> > Hi everyone, I have been following the this thread with interest,
> > but am confused as to to what the term 'original research' means. As
> > a writer of history I take it to mean searching the literature and
> > archives and writing a new, properly referenced, article about topic
> > which may well not have appeared in any other place than
> > Wikipedia. Certainly there is a great deal in my field which is not
> > to be found anywhere on the Web, and Wikipedia is an excellent means
> > of getting it there.
>
> Suppose for example you've come up with a novel historical theory
> which appears in no peer reviewed journals and which is contradicted
> by prominent authorities in the field, and you prove your theory
> through original research into primary sources, archives, etc.
>
> I am thinking of a particular example, and I'll give that to
> illustrate my point.  Michael Bellesiles published a book by a
> reputable publisher in 2000 with the surprising thesis that contrary
> to popular understanding, guns were quite rare in the early years of
> the United States.  This book generated a firestorm of controversy and
> it was later determined by an outside panel of investigators hired by
> his University to investigate fraud charges that he was "guilty of
> unprofessional and misleading work".
>
> It took a fair amount of time (2 years) for this process to work
> itself out, and juding the validity of Bellesiles claims involved a
> lot of scholarly work *of the type that we are poorly equipped to
> carry out*.
>
> Suppose Bellesiles had attempted to publish his novel historical
> thesis at wikipedia, rather than in traditional primary sources?  We
> would quite properly have rejected it as original research, because we
> are ill-equipped to judge the validity of such things.
>
> > If we are going to have a blanket ban on 'original research' we ought
> > to be more precise as to what it actually means, perhaps re-wording
> > the phrase. Any ideas?
>
> I think the phrase is just fine, but I do agree with you that we need
> to explore more carefully what it means.  In many cases, the
> distinction between original research and synthesis of published work
> will require thoughtful editorial judgment.
>
> --Jimbo
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] Original research

body:
Zoney wrote:

>I would think that valid Wikipedia articles can indeed be considered
>"original research" by others outside Wikipedia, as articles should
>arise from the gathering of information from various sources (a
>process called research?) with the result of an article unique to
>Wikipedia.
>
>On Wikipedia though, the term has been hijacked to some degree to
>include a much narrower category of work - namely those consisting of
>original conclusions, original theories, etc. By and large though,
>such work falls into a category that common sense would dictate
>shouldn't be on Wikipedia, for the reasons outlined by Jimbo.
>
>I think this is probably the reason for any confusion over the term
>"original research". I could be wrong of course!
>
>
Well, I'd expand the ban on "original research" slightly further than
just that.  An article that makes no new low-level claims, but
nonethless synthesizes work in a non-standard way, is effectively
original research that I think we ought not to publish.  This comes up
most often in history, where there is a tendency by some Wikipedians to
produce novel narratives and historical interpretations with citation to
primary sources to back up their interpretation of events.  Even if
their citations are accurate, Wikipedia's poorly equipped to judge
whether their particular synthesis of the available information is a
reasonable one.

A better approach, IMO, is to report more generally what syntheses are
accepted by people working in the field.  In the common case where there
are multiple competing narratives, then we ought to report that as well.

-Mark


from_name: Michael Bimmler

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Setting up Wikinews languages

body:
I support Eric and I think, we should set up de.wikinews as soon as possible
Michael


from_name: Sunrise Ppptes

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: New language introduction

body: I had no idea that there was such an informative sight on the net! I can't wait to start posting articles in Tumbuka - set us up yesterday!


subject: [Wikinews-l] Re: [Foundation-l] Setting up Wikinews languages

body:
Angela wrote:

> Could someone please confirm whether
> this is the case or whether there is already enough support for a
> German Wikinews?

I can confirm it. And I also confirm that "already" does not apply.
Support for a vapourous thing won't increase. Please stop assuming that
the success or failure or the whatever of en.wikinews will have a short
term influence on de in case you do.

Mathias


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 02:40:49 +1100, Tim Starling
<t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:

> Good enough for me. I'm not attached to this policy enough to complain
> about the fact that only one of those email addresses was
> "non-disposable". I've added tum to the language list. The wikipedia
> http://tum.wikipedia.org should be set up by the time you read this, you
> can create other projects with the relevant "create wiki" button if you
> wish.

I'd say that even without that, there was no clear objection, in which
case the policy is in my opinion not to be adhered to, the more since
it is still only a proposed policy.

Andre Engels


list: wiktionary-l

from_name: Ian Monroe

subject: [Wiktionary-l] [en] A Modest Proposal for Pretend Words

references:
<f680fec504120302011c46a61d@mail.gmail.com>
	<20041203103724.GG25395@wikia.com>
	<opsif0jzu62okkek@arcadia.attbi.com>

body:
Well, I think the elitist 19th-century dictionaries serve as a poor
example of what Wiktionary should be about.

Then English Wiktionary has a Sanskrit entry for [[surfboard]] ,
[[???????]], and as you noted in the discussion of it, it does create
a problem because its really hard to say whether someone just decided
thats how surfboard would be spelt or if there's some Hindu cleric who
has been praying for ???????'s for years. I don't think its
appropriate for contributors to Wiktionary to translate words into
languages that don't have a word for it already, thats not our place
IMO. Granted, Wikipedia might have to from time to time, but they have
different goals.

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 10:37:01 -0700, Muke Tever <muke at frath.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 02:37:24 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> I propose we change policy on en.Wiktionary user-created words
> >> (so-called "protologisms") to exclude them entirely.
> >>
> >> (Hereafter, when I say Wiktionary, I mean the English one).
> >
> > I would recommend that this be adopted as a blanket policy for all of
> > wiktionary.  The specific means of judging which words are "pretend"
> > will likely vary by language, of course, but the general principle is
> > universal.
> >
> > I would be interested to hear any counter-arguments, but I doubt very
> > much if there are any.  Made up words, original words, are quite
> > beside the point of a dictionary.
>
> A minority language may find it necessary to resort to neologisms, either
> by calque or by borrowing, when defining modern concepts ("blog",
> "fluoxetine"), culturally remote concepts ("khan", "senator"), the best
> gender or declension to put a foreign place name in (is "Shikoku" neuter
> or feminine?), or the best way to spell foreign names in a non-Latin
> script ("Xhosa" in Cherokee, or "Pirah?" in Mkhedruli).
>
> This practice should probably be (strongly) differentiated from making
> up words at random, as with [[hu]].
>
> (For a language as "fixed" as English, we take for granted one of the
> earlier purposes of dictionaries, which was to suggest usage as well:
> note the innovations made in spelling by some of the earlier lexicographers,
> some of which took hold and some of which didn't. For a project as rambling
> as the English wiktionary, this effect is probably impossible, but if
> a language took its wiktionary as seriously as, say, English takes its
> Wikipedia, it could well be influential, if not an actual authority.)
>
>         *Muke!


from_name: Muke Tever

body:
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 16:54:24 -0600, Ian Monroe <ian.monroe at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I think the elitist 19th-century dictionaries serve as a poor
> example of what Wiktionary should be about.

No dictionary has been perfect yet.  But just because some areas are flawed
doesn't mean we can't learn from what good points they may have.

> Then English Wiktionary has a Sanskrit entry for [[surfboard]] ,
> [[???????]], and as you noted in the discussion of it, it does create
> a problem because its really hard to say whether someone just decided
> thats how surfboard would be spelt or if there's some Hindu cleric who
> has been praying for ???????'s for years.

It doesn't have to be about obscure clerics.  Sanskrit may be a dead language
like Latin, but as I understand it it didn't experienced a decline in use like
Latin did starting from about the fifteenth century (see [[Humanist Latin]]).
Sanskrit, according to [[Sanskrit]], is still commonly being taught and
apparently is used by about four million people.

> I don't think its appropriate for contributors to Wiktionary totranslate words into languages that don't have a word for it already,thats not our place IMO. Granted, Wikipedia might have to from timeto time, but they have different goals.

Well, the neologism template on la: (Latin is a bad example, I know, but the
only one I am involved with) has a call for older, better, and attested forms
of words.  This is important mainly because the Latin most people know is
Classical Latin, but the language has been in use for a long time since then,
and a lot of more modern things have actually been written about and
subsequently forgotten.  My hope is that wiktionary can become a vehicle for
these things to be found again.

I could give an example, I guess.  A user on la:wikt created [[Honsium]] for
the Japanese island "Honshu", based on the wikipedia entry.  Now, in general,
the quality of Latin on the Wikipedia is very bad, so it's not admissible as
a source and it gets the neologism template.

Afterwards another user comes by with an attestation in a Latin reference
work from 1977 (Carolus Egger's _Lexicon Nominum Locorum_) where it is given
as "Honsua", to which the page was moved and now currently stands, without
the neologism template.

Sometimes we can do better.  [[Sicocum]] ("Shikoku") was also created.  The
1977 source lists it as "Sicocus" (feminine).  However, we were able
to go back even further, and found a 1589 source speaking of Xicocum (neuter;
with a Spanish value of x, i.e. /S/, in modern spelling better Sicocum), so
it gets to stay where it is.  (It doesn't list Honshu by anything approximating
the modern name, though.  It named the island Meacum, after Kyoto.)

I know this is a ... special situation.  This language has no native speakers
left, so its compilation depends entirely on research.  We don't _know_ if
we have the words, so we put things down tentatively. Other language
Wiktionaries have the benefit of native speaker intuition as well, so this
system may not work as well there.

	*Muke!
--
website:     http://frath.net/
LiveJournal: http://kohath.livejournal.com/
deviantArt:  http://kohath.deviantart.com/

FrathWiki, a conlang and conculture wiki:
http://wiki.frath.net/


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikinews Licensing

body:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

> I agree, but I hope you'll participate on a short-term basis with it
> being PD, since the purpose of being PD right now is just to enable us
> to have some time to really think through the licensing issues more
> carefully.

I'll participate in a wiki that is still evaluating the 'right' license.
     And I don't expect wikinews to become a souce of steal-worthy
content in that evaluation time so PD does not hurt in that time.

However, I urge you all not to postpone this decision into a distant
future. The License issue has been 'in the air' for years, so there is
no need to start from the beginning. We seem to have all the facts which
enable us to an informed decision.

I only see GFDL or CC as a possible candidate so a dual-licensing would
not block future decisions as well. But these are details which can be
all discussed.

And maybe someone is able to convince me to use PD, nobody knows :)

Mathias


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikinews Licensing


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikinews Licensing

body:
----- Original Message -----
From: Jens Ropers <ropers at ropersonline.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
Sent: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 01:47:22 +0100
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikinews Licensing

>(1)
>While WP compatibility might seem like a real important and convenient
>thing, IMHO coming to that conclusion is fallacious (as in [[logical
>fallacy]]):
>- WP compatibility is pretty much only needed if people want to
>DUPLICATE (ie. not rewrite) content from the WP.
>- Wikinews was was expressly advertised as a project that would NOT
>simply duplicate WP content.
>Thus, I believe the "requirement" for WP license compatibility is much
>less than one might think.

Looking at the Wikinews articles I was involved in so far, it
seems that taking materials from Wikipedia does not happen much.

If Wikinews articles can be incorporated into Wikipedia article,
that would be good. I am guessing that the need for Wikinews to
incorporate Wikipedia articles is quite limited.

Regarding the license poll, I noticed that the people who expressed
their opinions are not necessarily the active participants on
Wikinews so far. I am not sure what to make of it, but I wonder
if only Wikinews participants will vote on the license issue, or
any Wikimedian can vote. The former has some intuitive appeal, but
there aren't that many active participants yet. I think it is okay
to delay the vote until there will be more active users on Wikinews.
For a while, Wikinews contents are under public domain - it is like
a opening special give-away for potential re-users.

There is virtually no discussion on license issue on wikinews. The
biggest discussion so far among the participants is if we would like
to publish unreviewed articles on the main page (the community is
really divided on this), and if and how we want to change the reveiw process.

Regards,

Tomos


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikinews Licensing


from_name: Angela

body:
Mathias Schindler  wrote:
> > Could someone please confirm whether
> > this is the case or whether there is already enough support for a
> > German Wikinews?
>
> I can confirm it. And I also confirm that "already" does not apply.
> Support for a vapourous thing won't increase. Please stop assuming that
> the success or failure or the whatever of en.wikinews will have a short
> term influence on de in case you do.

I just want to make it clear that I was never assuming one Wikinews
would influence the success of another in the way that you imply. I
was simply passing on the results of a discussion on IRC, in which I
was led to believe that one of the German mailing lists had made a
decision about this, and I wanted to clarify the situation before the
wiki was created.

Anyhow, the wiki now exists and I have made Elian an administrator
there and Mathias a bureaucrat as per requests via Jimbo.

http://de.wikinews.org/

Angela.


from_name: Thomas Gries

subject: [Wikitech-l] 1.4 branch; Enotif and Eauthent

body:
Dear all,
I just wanted to point that I'll try to publish my Enotif (Email
Notification for page changes) incl. Eauthent (Email Address
Authentication) incl further patches for the branched 1.4 version until
Tuesday, 07.12.2004. -- working very very hard on that.

Some further tests are needed, and then a first release will come - I
promise, you will like my patch.
Tom


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Problem in the Yiddish Wikipedia

body:
There is 1 other user on the Yiddish Wikipedia, and he created those
articles, and when I blanked them, he reverted them, and I did not
make an issue of it... but apparently Danny feels it's an issue even
though nobody else does.

Mark

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 01:56:42 +0100 (CET), Lars Aronsson <lars at aronsson.se> wrote:
> Mark Williamson wrote:
> > Right, if I wrote an article on en: that said "a popular singer", it
> > would be expanded? Am I supposed to believe that? If I made articles
> > like that on en.wikipedia, I'd probably be asked to stop, and perhaps
> > even banned.
>
> Mark, Mark, Mark, we don't want this discussion here.  You must be
> able to resolve this on the local level with your peers on the Yiddish
> Wikipedia.  Probably, that requires that you use Yiddish in the
> discussion pages there.  Since I don't speak nor understand Yiddish, I
> will stay away from that Wikipedia.
>
> --
>   Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
>   Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
>


references:
<f680fec504120302011c46a61d@mail.gmail.com>
	<20041203103724.GG25395@wikia.com>
	<opsif0jzu62okkek@arcadia.attbi.com>
	<f680fec5041203145497551e7@mail.gmail.com>
	<opsigilxss2okkek@arcadia.attbi.com>

body:
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 17:06:59 -0700, Muke Tever <muke at frath.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 16:54:24 -0600, Ian Monroe <ian.monroe at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, I think the elitist 19th-century dictionaries serve as a poor
> > example of what Wiktionary should be about.
>
> No dictionary has been perfect yet.  But just because some areas are flawed
> doesn't mean we can't learn from what good points they may have.

You seemed to be making the point that the elitism of the early
dictionaries served a good purpose (they made spelling standard, a
Good Thing indeed) and that Wiktionary has something to learn from
this ("to suggest usage"), which I disagree with. Maybe I misread your
point.

> > Then English Wiktionary has a Sanskrit entry for [[surfboard]] ,
> > [[???????]], and as you noted in the discussion of it, it does create
> > a problem because its really hard to say whether someone just decided
> > thats how surfboard would be spelt or if there's some Hindu cleric who
> > has been praying for ???????'s for years.
>
> It doesn't have to be about obscure clerics.  Sanskrit may be a dead language
> like Latin, but as I understand it it didn't experienced a decline in use like
> Latin did starting from about the fifteenth century (see [[Humanist Latin]]).
> Sanskrit, according to [[Sanskrit]], is still commonly being taught and
> apparently is used by about four million people.

Well, that does make it much more likely that ??????? is a real word
if Sanskrit is being spoken. Kind of like the Irish learning Irish
again.

> > I don't think its appropriate for contributors to Wiktionary totranslate words into languages that don't have a word for it already,thats not our place IMO. Granted, Wikipedia might have to from timeto time, but they have different goals.
>
> Well, the neologism template on la: (Latin is a bad example, I know, but the
> only one I am involved with) has a call for older, better, and attested forms
> of words.  This is important mainly because the Latin most people know is
> Classical Latin, but the language has been in use for a long time since then,
> and a lot of more modern things have actually been written about and
> subsequently forgotten.  My hope is that wiktionary can become a vehicle for
> these things to be found again.
>
> I could give an example, I guess.  A user on la:wikt created [[Honsium]] for
> the Japanese island "Honshu", based on the wikipedia entry.  Now, in general,
> the quality of Latin on the Wikipedia is very bad, so it's not admissible as
> a source and it gets the neologism template.
>
> Afterwards another user comes by with an attestation in a Latin reference
> work from 1977 (Carolus Egger's _Lexicon Nominum Locorum_) where it is given
> as "Honsua", to which the page was moved and now currently stands, without
> the neologism template.
>
> Sometimes we can do better.  [[Sicocum]] ("Shikoku") was also created.  The
> 1977 source lists it as "Sicocus" (feminine).  However, we were able
> to go back even further, and found a 1589 source speaking of Xicocum (neuter;
> with a Spanish value of x, i.e. /S/, in modern spelling better Sicocum), so
> it gets to stay where it is.  (It doesn't list Honshu by anything approximating
> the modern name, though.  It named the island Meacum, after Kyoto.)
>
> I know this is a ... special situation.  This language has no native speakers
> left, so its compilation depends entirely on research.  We don't _know_ if
> we have the words, so we put things down tentatively. Other language
> Wiktionaries have the benefit of native speaker intuition as well, so this
> system may not work as well there.
>
>         *Muke!
I think a Wiktionary user should not sit down with a phoentic guide
and decide how to spell a word. Granted, I don't work on any classical
languages so I guess its really up to the folks that do to make the
call, and it should be the policy of en.wikt as well regarding those
languages.

Ian


body:
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 04:01:37 -0600, Ian Monroe <ian.monroe at gmail.com> wrote:
> Proposal:
> I propose we change policy on en.Wiktionary user-created words
> (so-called "protologisms") to exclude them entirely.

Just remembered this.  This was around back when I was working on en.wikt:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion

Was it superseded, or just forgotten?

	*Muke!
--
website:     http://frath.net/
LiveJournal: http://kohath.livejournal.com/
deviantArt:  http://kohath.deviantart.com/

FrathWiki, a conlang and conculture wiki:
http://wiki.frath.net/


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration Committee election has started

body:
The announcement is on Recentchanges and several other places, and the
election has been discussed here before, but I figured the mailing list
should also receive an announcement that voting has begun in the
December Arbitration Committee election.

--Michael Snow


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikinews Licensing

body:
Jens Ropers (ropers at ropersonline.com) [041203 11:47]:

> (1)
> While WP compatibility might seem like a real important and convenient
> thing, IMHO coming to that conclusion is fallacious (as in [[logical
> fallacy]]):
> - WP compatibility is pretty much only needed if people want to
> DUPLICATE (ie. not rewrite) content from the WP.
> - Wikinews was was expressly advertised as a project that would NOT
> simply duplicate WP content.
> Thus, I believe the "requirement" for WP license compatibility is much
> less than one might think.

I'd disagree, actually. Have you noticed how a breaking news story article
comes together on Wikipedia? It's like seeing a newsmagazine feature being
composed before your eyes. And a lot of stuff on wikinews-l is actually
newsmagazine-quality writing, not necessarily simple-grammar
inverted-pyramid newspaper-style information. So I think a lot of the stuff
on wikinews, we really will want to just copy from Wikinews to Wikipedia.

> (2)
> I would ''strongly'' argue for a public domain "license". As they say:
> Yesterday's news is used to wrap fish tomorrow. For a news site like
> Wikinews, the biggest asset will likely turn out to be an active,
> striving contributor community. Yes, a PD "license" would dramatically
> lessen Wikinews' control over content reuse, but any static copies will
> quickly become outdated and only serve as far as their archive value
> goes (real obnoxious automated content grabbing sited could be
> blocked). Users will thus figure out pretty quickly that the real McCoy
> is at wikinews.org. So little is lost by going PD and PD is what news
> should be. Any writing "for posteriority" (where you might have bigger
> concerns over content reuse) probably belongs at wikipedia.org anyway.

This is probably true. I suppose it depends what the contributors want.
I do know of at least one professional journalist who is really very
excited over Wikinews, and who I've contacted suggesting they weigh in with
an opinion. Something that would attract professional journalists who can't
help but write news but would like to write for someone other than Rupert
Murdoch would be marvellous.

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikinews Licensing


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikinews Licensing

body:
David Gerard (fun at thingy.apana.org.au) [041203 21:45]:
> Jens Ropers (ropers at ropersonline.com) [041203 11:47]:

> > (1)
> > While WP compatibility might seem like a real important and convenient
> > thing, IMHO coming to that conclusion is fallacious (as in [[logical
> > fallacy]]):
> > - WP compatibility is pretty much only needed if people want to
> > DUPLICATE (ie. not rewrite) content from the WP.
> > - Wikinews was was expressly advertised as a project that would NOT
> > simply duplicate WP content.
> > Thus, I believe the "requirement" for WP license compatibility is much
> > less than one might think.

> I'd disagree, actually. Have you noticed how a breaking news story article
> comes together on Wikipedia? It's like seeing a newsmagazine feature being
> composed before your eyes. And a lot of stuff on wikinews-l is actually
> newsmagazine-quality writing, not necessarily simple-grammar
> inverted-pyramid newspaper-style information. So I think a lot of the stuff
> on wikinews, we really will want to just copy from Wikinews to Wikipedia.

I should of course read before writing. (I plead a severely sleep-deprived
week of on-call.) You are of course talking about WP->WN, not the other way
around.

kiiillllll meeeeee. But give me coffee first.  (Caffeine is *not* a
substitute for sheep.)

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikinews Licensing


from_name: Robin Shannon

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikinews Licensing

body:
Well i have contributed 2 articles to wikinews so far, and one of them
i lifted (more or less) straight from wikipedia (from an article that
was written about 5 minutes before i sat down to write). I can think
that there would be plenty of times when lifting a paragraph or so
from wikipedia would be useful in wikinews. Hence while i would like
it to be PD, i think that GFDL (provided that becomes CC-BY-SA
complient sometime) would be the most practical.

paz y amor,
[[User:The bellman]]
rjs

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 21:57:25 +1100, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> David Gerard (fun at thingy.apana.org.au) [041203 21:45]:
>
>
> > Jens Ropers (ropers at ropersonline.com) [041203 11:47]:
>
> > > (1)
> > > While WP compatibility might seem like a real important and convenient
> > > thing, IMHO coming to that conclusion is fallacious (as in [[logical
> > > fallacy]]):
> > > - WP compatibility is pretty much only needed if people want to
> > > DUPLICATE (ie. not rewrite) content from the WP.
> > > - Wikinews was was expressly advertised as a project that would NOT
> > > simply duplicate WP content.
> > > Thus, I believe the "requirement" for WP license compatibility is much
> > > less than one might think.
>
> > I'd disagree, actually. Have you noticed how a breaking news story article
> > comes together on Wikipedia? It's like seeing a newsmagazine feature being
> > composed before your eyes. And a lot of stuff on wikinews-l is actually
> > newsmagazine-quality writing, not necessarily simple-grammar
> > inverted-pyramid newspaper-style information. So I think a lot of the stuff
> > on wikinews, we really will want to just copy from Wikinews to Wikipedia.
>
>
> I should of course read before writing. (I plead a severely sleep-deprived
> week of on-call.) You are of course talking about WP->WN, not the other way
> around.
>
> kiiillllll meeeeee. But give me coffee first.  (Caffeine is *not* a
> substitute for sheep.)
>
>
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
hit me: robin.shannon.id.au
jab me: saudade at jabber.zim.net.au

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Recombo Plus License. To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikinews Licensing


body:
Never seen that page. Perhaps it could be linked to from
[[MediaWiki:Newarticletext]]. Those are some nice criteria. It pretty
close to the OED's I think, whose relatively low standards for words
are kind of what we're going for.

We've let first and last names into the Wiktionary which I don't think
is necesarily a bad thing. It does make thinking of good concise
criteria for proper nouns difficult though.

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 21:25:12 -0700, Muke Tever <muke at frath.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 04:01:37 -0600, Ian Monroe <ian.monroe at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Proposal:
> > I propose we change policy on en.Wiktionary user-created words
> > (so-called "protologisms") to exclude them entirely.
>
> Just remembered this.  This was around back when I was working on en.wikt:
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion
>
> Was it superseded, or just forgotten?
>
>         *Muke!


from_name: Tim Starling

body:
Jens Ropers wrote:

>
> Would it be a good idea to set up some restricted access shared
> Wikipedian telephone directory, where people can opt to give their
> phone number and hrs of "reachability" and time zone? The directory
> probably should only be readable by registered Wikipedians who give
> their own phone number as well.
>
> Do people think that's a nutty idea or does something along these
> lines possibly make sense?

We did that a while ago, the emergency developer contact list. The basic
idea was to give developer phone numbers to various active Wikipedians,
so that someone could be contacted when the site went offline. Now we've
got more developers, so there's always someone hanging around on IRC.
Erik wasn't on the list, so that wouldn't have helped in this case. I'm
a bit more wary about giving out my phone number now than I used to be.
Wik was on the list of active Wikipedians, and he did make a
half-hearted attempt to publish my phone number to get back at me for
blocking his vandalbot. He didn't make any threatening phone calls to
any of the developers, which I appreciate.

I'm sure Erik would be quite happy giving Jimbo his phone number, after
all I'm pretty sure Erik has Jimbo's. It was a phone call from Erik to
Jimbo that convinced Jimbo to get moving on the creation of the
Wikimedia Foundation.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Lars Aronsson

body:
Mark Williamson wrote:
> Right, if I wrote an article on en: that said "a popular singer", it
> would be expanded? Am I supposed to believe that? If I made articles
> like that on en.wikipedia, I'd probably be asked to stop, and perhaps
> even banned.

Mark, Mark, Mark, we don't want this discussion here.  You must be
able to resolve this on the local level with your peers on the Yiddish
Wikipedia.  Probably, that requires that you use Yiddish in the
discussion pages there.  Since I don't speak nor understand Yiddish, I
will stay away from that Wikipedia.

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se


body:
Sunrise Ppptes wrote:
> I had no idea that there was such an informative sight on the net! I
> can't wait to start posting articles in Tumbuka - set us up
> yesterday!

OK so that's:

1. Dinnette (contact)
2. Diganie Soko
3. Titha Paliani
4. Sekani Nyagulu
5. Sunrise Ppptes

Good enough for me. I'm not attached to this policy enough to complain
about the fact that only one of those email addresses was
"non-disposable". I've added tum to the language list. The wikipedia
http://tum.wikipedia.org should be set up by the time you read this, you
can create other projects with the relevant "create wiki" button if you
wish.

-- Tim Starling.


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: New Security model to work on REL1.4

body:
vic wrote:
> Hi ...
> I am very interested on the new security model (developed by hashar i
> think), as
> the one listed on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:User_levels
> Are this implemented on REL1.4 (i dont think so).
> Are you planning to implement on final 1.4 ?
> Where are more documentation about this module ??? what pages are being
> used ?
> i would like to cooperate on this subject.
> This enhance is critical to my wiki.
>
> thanks

Hello vic,

I did not catch you on IRC :p  As brion said, the user level patch will
not be included in 1.4 mainly because I have no time at the momment to
work on it.

The patch is still in HEAD and code is in:
./includes/SpecialUserlevels.php (interface to manage rights)
./includes/Groups.php (an object that represent a group of users)

HTMLForm.php need to be enhanced a lot as well. The best thing would be
to reuse a PEAR extension but I am not sure we want to rely on PEAR for
MediaWiki.

Also look at the tracking bug :
  http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=767

NB: being unemployed at the momment, I am focusing on finding a new job
instead of developping :p

cheers,

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
Servers in trouble ? noc (at) wikimedia (dot) org
"This signature is a virus. Copy me in yours to spread it."


from_name: Allan Crossman

subject: [WikiEN-l] Autoblocker: change it or shut it off

body:
> The autoblocker was designed for a purpose, and it still largely
> serves that purpose. I don't think there's a need to completely shut
> it off. However, they really shouldn't be affecting logged-in users,
> and I think that as UC says, having them only affect account creation
> and anon editing would be a wise move.

If you do this, then all a vandal has to do is create a whole load of
accounts prior to his spree; block one and he will just switch to another.

I'd like to make an alterative suggestion: a sysop-operated whitelist.
Any username on the whitelist would be immune from IP blocks (though NOT
from direct blocks on the username itself).

There would be no need to pro-actively add users to it; all that would
be required is to wait until a problem arises for someone, then fix it
for them when they email to complain...

The beauty of this system would be that no logged-in user would ever
have to suffer an IP block due to someone else's misbehaviour more than
once.

--
Allan Crossman - a.crossman at blueyonder.co.uk
The Moon is Waning Gibbous (59% of Full)


from_name: Sj

body:
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 01:53:33 +1100, Tim Starling
<t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> Mathias Schindler wrote:
> > http://www.cornellsun.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/12/02/41ae87066c10f
>
> That's brilliant, it's a little insight into the mind of a vandal. He's
>   calling us all losers for trying to construct something of value. He
> attacks the site just out of revulsion for the effort we put in. I guess
> if we want to be more than "barely-sapient", we should discard our
> geekish ways and go play football.

Brilliant indeed.  As I read it at first, I hoped this was a young
friend of Harlan Ellison's...  As for playing football, I think the
author would cheer right up again if we all made a point of having
children.  Lots of children.

+sj+


body:
Cecil, great idea!   There aren't many graphical-interface designers
around here, and it would take a bit of cleverness to work out how to
fit a map's worth of content onto a screen.  Perhaps there is some
offline mindmapping software which could be open-sourced and adapted
to the purpose?  Let us know if you are aware of such software.

Jens, there are hundreds of mind-mapping methods; Buzan is welcome to
reign emperor of his vapour-empire, but should hardly dampen this
discussion.

+sj+

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 13:57:29 +0100, Jens Ropers <ropers at ropersonline.com> wrote:
> Careful there.
> [[en:Tony Buzan]] may hold associated copyrights, patents and/or
> trademarks.
> Not sure though; just a caveat.
>
> -- ropers
>
>
>
> On 2 Dec 2004, at 17:12, Houchin, Cecil wrote:
>
> > Dear Wikipedia Support Team,
> >
> > Have you ever thought of adding software that would allow the
> > development of
> > concept and mind maps within Wikipedia?  I believe that concept and
> > mind
> > mapping are concise and efficient ways to display information and their
> > associations. I think it would add tremendous value to your site.
> >
> > A web site with examples of concept and mind maps can be found at:
> > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
> >
> > The following websites may also help if your interested:
> > http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/scholonto/summary.html
> > http://users.edte.utwente.nl/lanzing/cm_home.htm
> > http://www.macrovu.com/VLBkExmplPgsMenu.html
> > http://www.triz-journal.com/archives/2001/01/c/index.htm
> >
> > Thank you for Wikipedia,
> > Cecil Houchin
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wikipedia information team [mailto:info-en at wikimedia.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 4:11 PM
> > To: Houchin, Cecil
> > Subject: [Ticket#: 105515] Wikipedia - Concept and Mind Maps
> >
> >
> > Dear Cecil Houchin,
> >
> > Thank you for your mail.
> >
> >> Have you ever thought of adding software that would allow the
> >> development of concept and mind maps within Wikipedia?  I believe that
> >> information mapping tools would add tremendous value to your site.
> >
> > As you may know, Wikimedia projects are written and maintained solely
> > by
> > volunteers - both on the technical side and the actual content.  Your
> > suggestion sounds like something our technical volunteers would be
> > interested in hearing more about.  You might be interested in
> > introducing
> > your ideas on one of our mailing lists.
> >
> > Our general information page on the mailing lists is at:
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_list
> >
> > In particular the technical mailing list may be of use:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
> > The general Wikipedia list is also very active:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> > Thanks for your kind words about Wikipedia,
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Lisa Cushway
> > Wikimedia support team
> >
> > --
> > Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>

--
+sj+
 _ _ :-------.-.--------.--.--------.-.--------.--.--------[...]


body:
Thank you, Michael.

Devs: Is there a place, other than the long list of PGP'ed votes,
where one can see basic stats on how many people have voted?

+sj+

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 21:30:13 -0800, Michael Snow
<wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:
> The announcement is on Recentchanges and several other places, and the
> election has been discussed here before, but I figured the mailing list
> should also receive an announcement that voting has begun in the
> December Arbitration Committee election.
>
> --Michael Snow


body:
Great idea.  +sj+

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 03:08:49 +0000, Allan Crossman
<a.crossman at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> I'd like to make an alterative suggestion: a sysop-operated whitelist.
> Any username on the whitelist would be immune from IP blocks (though NOT
> from direct blocks on the username itself).
<
> The beauty of this system would be that no logged-in user would ever
> have to suffer an IP block due to someone else's misbehaviour more than
> once.


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] page deletion

body:
On Dec 4, 2004, at 5:59 AM, Frank v Waveren wrote:
> Those of you on enwiki may have noticed my recent attempts to
> democraticise page deletion. I feel the current deletion system on
> unwiki is not ideal.

Please see existing discussion on this topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ShaneKing/vfd_proposal
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deletion_management_redesign

> This seems like an obvious way of implementing things, however when
> mediawiki was designed it wasn't done like that, which leads me to
> ask: Are there technical reasons why it wasn't? Deleted pages are
> already kept in the database, so it wouldn't cost more space.

The chief reason to be deleting something (as opposed to redirecting it
to a more appropriate article or replacing it with a better one) is
that it includes copyrighted material that we don't have permission to
distribute. This necessitates not being able to have _just anybody_
come along and view or undelete it.

A system that keeps deleted pages invisible but also makes it easy to
delete and undelete is a little trickier to do than a simple
administrative action, and no one's got round to it yet.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20041204/38142f22/attachment.pgp>


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] FW: [Ticket#: 105515] Wikipedia - Concept and
	MindMaps

body:
On Dec 4, 2004, at 7:34 AM, James R. Johnson wrote:
> It'd be pretty cool to have some map making software to make maps for
> all the different languages with native names for places.

If you're thinking of _geographical_ maps, see prior work on this at
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimaps

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20041204/a1c13382/attachment.pgp


from_name: Giovanni

subject: [Wikitech-l] About text parsing

body:
Hi,
I need still use template feature but not to parse other part of the text, for example images.
Can you suggest what file I have to modify to get this result?

Giovanni Putignano


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] 3RR - does it also apply to sysops?

body:
At 01:51 PM 12/4/2004 +0000, R E Broadley wrote:

>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress&diff=8098105&oldid=8097621
>
>Disclaimer: This email is written in good faith.
>
>There is a user who is removing their own reports from the Vandalism in
>progress page. This user was listed yesterday for reverting a page at
>least 5 times. The reverting was not removing vandalism but was asserting
>a POV. As far as I am aware, this user should have been blocked for 24
>hours, but it does not appear this happened.
>
>By the way, this user is also a sysop, but should this make a difference?
>This is a serious question.

I see nothing in the 3RR policy that exempts sysops; the three revert rule
is said to apply to "persons" and sysops would seem to fall under that
category. So IMO sysops are bound by it too - and rightly so.

However, banning a sysop is a little problematic in that they can simply
un-ban themselves. IMO, unbanning oneself after being banned for legitimate
reasons should be considered an abuse of sysop powers; unless there are
extenuating circumstances of some kind I don't expect such a person would
remain a sysop for long.

I know that I, for one, am quite ready and willing to hand out 24 bans now
that the 3RR is enforceable. It may just take a little time for this
knowledge to percolate out to the general population of sysops.


from_name: Rebecca

body:
The autoblocker was designed for a purpose, and it still largely
serves that purpose. I don't think there's a need to completely shut
it off. However, they really shouldn't be affecting logged-in users,
and I think that as UC says, having them only affect account creation
and anon editing would be a wise move.

Out of curiosity, would this be difficult to actually put into place?

-- ambi

On Fri,  3 Dec 2004 09:18:34 -0700, uninvited at nerstrand.net
<uninvited at nerstrand.net> wrote:
> I believe that at present the autoblocker is doing more harm than good.
> I believe we should shut it off.
>
> Alternatively, we could cause autoblocks to affect account creation and
> anon editing only.  At present they also affect logged-in users, which
> is particularly unfortunate.
>
> I recently blocked [[User:259]], and an ensuing autoblock also affected
> [[User:SFTVLGUY2]] who asked me to explain why the block applied since
> he was adequately identified by his username and password and had no
> history of vandalism.
>
> Other than saying, "that's the way it works, I'm sorry," I had no reply
> to give him.  And I hate giving out answers like that.
>
> The Uninvited Co., Inc.
> (a Delaware corporation)
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Charles Matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] original research

body:
Stan Shebs wrote

> [...]  but I
> can see WP *creating* a demand for new original research, to
> answer questions that have come up.

I don't think 'original research' should cover original scholarship.  That's
a stretch.

Charles


subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.4beta1 released

body:
On Dec 4, 2004, at 1:17 PM, Andre Engels wrote:
> Will this be or is this already put on test.wikipedia.org?

http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Version

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20041204/8a7b34af/attachment.pgp>


from_name: R E Broadley

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress&diff=8098105&oldid=8097621

Disclaimer: This email is written in good faith.

There is a user who is removing their own reports from the Vandalism in
progress page. This user was listed yesterday for reverting a page at
least 5 times. The reverting was not removing vandalism but was
asserting a POV. As far as I am aware, this user should have been
blocked for 24 hours, but it does not appear this happened.

By the way, this user is also a sysop, but should this make a
difference? This is a serious question.

Regards,
Edmund


from_name: Frank v Waveren

subject: [Wikitech-l] page deletion

body:
Those of you on enwiki may have noticed my recent attempts to
democraticise page deletion. I feel the current deletion system on
unwiki is not ideal.

After having a think about how best to solve this problem, it seemed
best to me to have deletion work the same as editing. The fewer
different cases, the fewer problems. The simple solution would be to
have an empty page be the same as a non-existant page (and
blank/non-existant pages could have edit history). That way page
deletion/undeletion would be under the same influences as the adding
and deletion of bits of pages.

This seems like an obvious way of implementing things, however when
mediawiki was designed it wasn't done like that, which leads me to
ask: Are there technical reasons why it wasn't? Deleted pages are
already kept in the database, so it wouldn't cost more space.

(if there are any misconceptions about how mediawiki works in this
mail please let me know; I'm not a PHP programmer (though I might be
forced to become one should I be able to get support for this kind of
scheme on enwiki)).

--
Frank v Waveren                                      Fingerprint: BDD7 D61E
fvw@[var.cx|stack.nl] ICQ#10074100                      5D39 CF05 4BFC F57A
Public key: hkp://wwwkeys.pgp.net/468D62C8              FA00 7D51 468D 62C8


from_name: steven l. rubenstein

subject: [WikiEN-l] original research

body:
The question is how to define original research.  I disagree with Zoney
that an article that is original to Wikipedia is "original research."  It
is an original encyclopedia article, and was certainly based on research,
but that research -- for an encyclopedia article -- is not what we call
"original" research.  I agree with Mark that we need to be very careful
about this.  I think Fred's distinction, "To put together an article using
references from published material is not original research. Advancing
ideas that you can find no published source for is." is  very  important
and if it is not clearly stated in the policy, then it should be.  That is,
an article that draws on previously published material but that advances
ideas that have not previously been published should, for our purposes, be
considered "original research."  Stan raises a very interesting point that
bears further discussion, perhaps on the policy's talk page.

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701


from_name: James R. Johnson

body:
It'd be pretty cool to have some map making software to make maps for all
the different languages with native names for places.

James

-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Sj
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 9:44 AM
To: wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org; cecil.houchin at ngc.com
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] FW: [Ticket#: 105515] Wikipedia - Concept and
MindMaps

Cecil, great idea!   There aren't many graphical-interface designers
around here, and it would take a bit of cleverness to work out how to
fit a map's worth of content onto a screen.  Perhaps there is some
offline mindmapping software which could be open-sourced and adapted
to the purpose?  Let us know if you are aware of such software.

Jens, there are hundreds of mind-mapping methods; Buzan is welcome to
reign emperor of his vapour-empire, but should hardly dampen this
discussion.

+sj+

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 13:57:29 +0100, Jens Ropers <ropers at ropersonline.com>
wrote:
> Careful there.
> [[en:Tony Buzan]] may hold associated copyrights, patents and/or
> trademarks.
> Not sure though; just a caveat.
>
> -- ropers
>
>
>
> On 2 Dec 2004, at 17:12, Houchin, Cecil wrote:
>
> > Dear Wikipedia Support Team,
> >
> > Have you ever thought of adding software that would allow the
> > development of
> > concept and mind maps within Wikipedia?  I believe that concept and
> > mind
> > mapping are concise and efficient ways to display information and their
> > associations. I think it would add tremendous value to your site.
> >
> > A web site with examples of concept and mind maps can be found at:
> > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
> >
> > The following websites may also help if your interested:
> > http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/scholonto/summary.html
> > http://users.edte.utwente.nl/lanzing/cm_home.htm
> > http://www.macrovu.com/VLBkExmplPgsMenu.html
> > http://www.triz-journal.com/archives/2001/01/c/index.htm
> >
> > Thank you for Wikipedia,
> > Cecil Houchin
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wikipedia information team [mailto:info-en at wikimedia.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 4:11 PM
> > To: Houchin, Cecil
> > Subject: [Ticket#: 105515] Wikipedia - Concept and Mind Maps
> >
> >
> > Dear Cecil Houchin,
> >
> > Thank you for your mail.
> >
> >> Have you ever thought of adding software that would allow the
> >> development of concept and mind maps within Wikipedia?  I believe that
> >> information mapping tools would add tremendous value to your site.
> >
> > As you may know, Wikimedia projects are written and maintained solely
> > by
> > volunteers - both on the technical side and the actual content.  Your
> > suggestion sounds like something our technical volunteers would be
> > interested in hearing more about.  You might be interested in
> > introducing
> > your ideas on one of our mailing lists.
> >
> > Our general information page on the mailing lists is at:
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_list
> >
> > In particular the technical mailing list may be of use:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
> > The general Wikipedia list is also very active:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> > Thanks for your kind words about Wikipedia,
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Lisa Cushway
> > Wikimedia support team
> >
> > --
> > Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>

--
+sj+
 _ _ :-------.-.--------.--.--------.-.--------.--.--------[...]
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


from_name: Jonah Bossewitch

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: additional variables on the phptal context

body:
Hi Evan,

Great stuff.  I had originally just been thinking about refactoring the
context setting into its own method such that it could be overridden by
subclassed skin allowing that skin to introduce it's own variables into the
context.  This strategy is much more general and obvious.

I think I found a good point SkinTemplate's outputpage method for a set of
hooks.

---------------
First, right after the template if first initialized (around line 160),  up
until the point right before execution.

$this->initPage( $out );
$tpl =& $this->setupTemplate( $this->template, 'skins' );
                if (wfRunHooks('OutputPage', $tpl)) {

                ...
                 wfRunHooks('OutputPageComplete', $tpl);
                }
               // execute template
                wfProfileIn( "$fname-execute" );
                $res = $tpl->execute();
                wfProfileOut( "$fname-execute" );
-----------

Where you might want to use them like this:
--------------------------
<?php
function doNothing(&$tpl) {
  wfDebug("**** Entering doNothing\n");
  return true;
}
function putWeatherInContext(&$tpl) {
  wfDebug("**** Entering putWeatherInContext\n");
  $tpl->set('weather', "Partly Cloudy");
  return true;
}
function setupCustomOutput() {
  global $wgHooks;
  $wgHooks['OutputPage'][] = 'doNothing';
  $wgHooks['OutputPageComplete'][] = 'putWeatherInContext';
}
?>

I have successfully been able to define and run my hooks, and I am sure they
are being called, but
I am having a little bit of trouble getting a reference to the template over
my methods.

To use the template so that I can write to it once I get it, I think I need
to have a reference, not a copy.

I am afraid that the references might be getting lost in the Hook.php,
either when getting the varible argument  parameters using the func_get_args
method, or when calling the method using the call_user_fucn technique,
perhaps in both places.

http://us2.php.net/func_get_args (see  fbeyer at clickhand dot de dot
noSpamPlease
19-Jan-2002 08:02 )
http://cppref.thomason.homeip.net/phpref/function.call-user-func.html
http://php.planetmirror.com/manual/en/language.references.pass.php (see  ben
at mekhaye dot net
02-Sep-2004 07:27 )

I'll admit that my php is a bit rusty, and that I have gotten used to
languages where all objects are first class, but I think this might affect
situations other than mine.

Otherwise, one other comment.  I wonder if it might make sense to have the
user defined data arguments  and the hook parameters bundled in in a named
dictionary so that the method signatures would never need to change, even if
new parameters needed to be added.

the fixed api of all functions would be

myHookFunction ($dataArgsArray, $parameterArray)

Where the data array and the parameter array would contain all the values
you wanted passed through keyed by the parameter name.  This "api" might
allow for more flexibility in the future.

I know this introduces even more deferencing, but it might be hard to
anticipate all the parameters that a hook might eventually need upfront.

I am not certain if packaging the data args and the hook args in
dictionaries will simplify the reference problem (I would hope that if you
manage to get a ref into the dict, it should still be one after its passed
to the hook method through call_user_func, but I am still experimenting with
this).

Anyway, I wanted to check in on this matter before I took this any further.

ps - it would be really cool if the new unittesting framework covered these
hooks.  I am trying to think about how I might write up a test or two, maybe
using a specific set of hooks, which would imply that the overall framework
is working.  Any ideas?

Thanks
Jonah


body:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress&diff=8098105&oldid=8097621
>
> By the way, this user is also a sysop, but should this make a
> difference? This is a serious question.

Is he? He fails to appear on [[Wikipedia:List_of_administrators]] or
[[Special:Listadmins]].

--
Allan Crossman - a.crossman at blueyonder.co.uk
The Moon is Waning Gibbous (53% of Full)


subject: [WikiEN-l] 3RR - what exactly are "complex reverts"?

body:
Allan Crossman wrote:

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress&diff=8098105&oldid=8097621
>>
>>
>> By the way, this user is also a sysop, but should this make a
>> difference? This is a serious question.
>
>
> Is he? He fails to appear on [[Wikipedia:List_of_administrators]] or
> [[Special:Listadmins]].
>
I'd somehow associated this user's behaviour as that of a sysop.
Apologies. Was Vandalism_in_progress the correct place to report users
in revert wars? (As far as I remember I checked the 3RR policy and it
referred me to the VIP section for this). Whether or not they did break
the 3RR, I'd expect there's a penalty for censoring the VIP article.

Speaking of the 3RR. I notice different sysops are interpreting this
rule differently. Some sysops have defined terms such as a "simple
revert" or a "complex revert", where complex reverts are simple reverts
but with additional editing. Is this a widely adopted definition of
reverts now? I think the "complex revert" is a reasonable extrapolation,
but I think it's important to ensure it is adequately defined, as it may
be possible to define any edit as a "complex revert" otherwise.

Regards,
Edmund


from_name: J.F. de Wolff

body:
Hotly agree with Ambi. The autoblocker has been the cause of many nasty
fights, Danny protecting his access to Wikipedia by coaching Mike Garcia
etc etc. Software-wise, this should not be a big deal, as long as account
creation is included (sockpuppets of the world, unite!)

Jfdwolff


from_name: Dori

subject: [Foundation-l] Policies expanding out of control

body:
I am really concerned that the number and extent of policies on en
Wikipedia is getting seriously out of hand. It's true that some policy
needs are necessary, but I feel like it's getting to the point where
you must have memorized hundreds of pages, spanning hundreds of
kilobytes of text, just to be able to edit within the "rules". Unless
you're spending most of your waking moments on Wikipedia, and keeping
up with all the new rules and decisions, you're unlikely to keep up
with all this. This is especially hard on admins who are the targets
of disruptive users. I am not saying that there shouldn't be
accountability, but all these rules is making the whole editing
process a whole lot less fun than it used to be. I am already feeling
like I should stop being an admin, and if the policy explosion extends
much further into the normal editing, I'd probably stop editing
altogether. Common sense seems to be going out the window.

It used to be that we had mostly guidelines, but at some point
guidelines seems to have moved into policy, and users are using these
to clobber each other left and right. I think this is a looming threat
to Wikipedia. The bureacracy level is increasing every day. I don't
think that the benefits of the increased bureacracy outweigh the added
complexity. Obviously Wikipedia is a lot bigger than it used to be,
but I think the medicine might turn into a new disease.

--
[[en:User:Dori]]


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
Will this be or is this already put on test.wikipedia.org?

Andre Engels

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 06:40:09 -0800, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> MediaWiki 1.4beta1 is an experimental release, to help flush out
> remaining major problems in the code prior to a final public 1.4.0
> release. It is not recommended to use this beta on a public site unless
> you're familiar with MediaWiki innards and are willing and able to help
> diagnose and fix problems that come up.


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration Committee election has started

body:
Sj wrote:
> Thank you, Michael.
>
> Devs: Is there a place, other than the long list of PGP'ed votes,
> where one can see basic stats on how many people have voted?
>

[[Special:ArbComVote/list]]

-- Tim Starling


body:
Even better.

It'd still be a potential issue with newbies, but if we had a page
where they could request being placed on said whitelist, and made said
page fairly easy to find, I think this wouldn't be a bad solution.

-- ambi

> <a.crossman at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I'd like to make an alterative suggestion: a sysop-operated whitelist.
> > Any username on the whitelist would be immune from IP blocks (though NOT
> > from direct blocks on the username itself).
> <
> > The beauty of this system would be that no logged-in user would ever
> > have to suffer an IP block due to someone else's misbehaviour more than
> > once.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Scott Nelson

body:
On Dec 4.2004, at 19:36, Dori wrote:

> The bureacracy level is increasing every day

Wired had a great idea a long time ago; the theory was that if a
company/enterprise had more than 25 people, it should be made a
standalone company.

The theory was to contest the kind of excessive bureaucracy you've
alluded to. It kept it to a minimum.

I'm not suggesting it'll solve problems necessarily, or that it applies
everywhere (it takes more than 25 people to turn out umpteen thousand
boring American sports cars) but it's a solid thought for an IT based
industry.

At some point bureaucracy slows you down, and - most importantly - no
longer adds value.

Note if you hire a maniac like me of course, but that's just me :)

The original author makes some very valid points, and they should be
considered carefully.

First suggestion: you can only sit on the board of/actively work on one
wiki project at once. Maybe two.
--
Skot Nelson
skot at penguinstorm.com


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Foundation-l] sep11.wikipedia.org

body:
sep11.wikipedia.org is a spam magnet, and not really an appropriate
project of its own:
* not educational: outside our mission
* not a community: scope too narrow
* not verifiable
* no NPOV
* improperly located: sep11.wikipedia.org suggests association with
Wikipedia - it even uses a Wikipedia logo

We're apparently so embarrassed by it that we hide it from most of our
"Sister Projects" lists.

Well, I won't be too negative - there are some valuable memories there
that deserve to be preserved, and volunteers have kept it in presentable
shape.

So here's my offer:

With Board authorization, I would go over these pages, and transform them
into a static website. This could be located at some URL which has yet to
be decided, maybe 911memories.org or something like that. I would prefer a
location that is not directly associated with Wikimedia, though it could
be labeled a Wikimedia publication.

Wikipeople has been brought up as a potential assimilation project, but
that strikes me as too vague, and there's no real thrust behind it, and
I'm not sure Wikipeople is a good idea in the first place, so the static
version seems like the best way forward for now. We would of course
preserve and make available the wiki database in case we ever want to
integrate it into something else.

Another option would be to host it at Jimbo's free wiki hosting service,
Wikicities.com. That would disassociate it from Wikimedia while still
allowing interested people to work on it.

Thoughts?

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Foundation-l] sep11.wikipedia.org


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
Here's a question for you then. Do you want the Arbitration Committee to use
"common sense" or follow established policies. (fyi, the Committee is
somewhat split on this point)

Fred

> From: Dori <slowpoke at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: Dori <slowpoke at gmail.com>, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 21:36:32 -0600
> To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Policies expanding out of control
>
> I am really concerned that the number and extent of policies on en
> Wikipedia is getting seriously out of hand. It's true that some policy
> needs are necessary, but I feel like it's getting to the point where
> you must have memorized hundreds of pages, spanning hundreds of
> kilobytes of text, just to be able to edit within the "rules". Unless
> you're spending most of your waking moments on Wikipedia, and keeping
> up with all the new rules and decisions, you're unlikely to keep up
> with all this. This is especially hard on admins who are the targets
> of disruptive users. I am not saying that there shouldn't be
> accountability, but all these rules is making the whole editing
> process a whole lot less fun than it used to be. I am already feeling
> like I should stop being an admin, and if the policy explosion extends
> much further into the normal editing, I'd probably stop editing
> altogether. Common sense seems to be going out the window.
>
> It used to be that we had mostly guidelines, but at some point
> guidelines seems to have moved into policy, and users are using these
> to clobber each other left and right. I think this is a looming threat
> to Wikipedia. The bureacracy level is increasing every day. I don't
> think that the benefits of the increased bureacracy outweigh the added
> complexity. Obviously Wikipedia is a lot bigger than it used to be,
> but I think the medicine might turn into a new disease.
>
> --
> [[en:User:Dori]]
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


body:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 06:16:54 -0700, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> Here's a question for you then. Do you want the Arbitration Committee to use
> "common sense" or follow established policies. (fyi, the Committee is
> somewhat split on this point)
>
> Fred

I think that 90% of all policies should apply to the main and Image:
namespaces (only 10% should apply to the other namespaces). The number
of policies should be pretty small (GFDL, NPOV, factual, be nice,
etc). The committee would go by the policy where one applies, but go
on common sense on most things.

>
> > From: Dori <slowpoke at gmail.com>
> > Reply-To: Dori <slowpoke at gmail.com>, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> > <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> > Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 21:36:32 -0600
> > To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > Subject: [Foundation-l] Policies expanding out of control
>
>
> >
> > I am really concerned that the number and extent of policies on en
> > Wikipedia is getting seriously out of hand. It's true that some policy
> > needs are necessary, but I feel like it's getting to the point where
> > you must have memorized hundreds of pages, spanning hundreds of
> > kilobytes of text, just to be able to edit within the "rules". Unless
> > you're spending most of your waking moments on Wikipedia, and keeping
> > up with all the new rules and decisions, you're unlikely to keep up
> > with all this. This is especially hard on admins who are the targets
> > of disruptive users. I am not saying that there shouldn't be
> > accountability, but all these rules is making the whole editing
> > process a whole lot less fun than it used to be. I am already feeling
> > like I should stop being an admin, and if the policy explosion extends
> > much further into the normal editing, I'd probably stop editing
> > altogether. Common sense seems to be going out the window.
> >
> > It used to be that we had mostly guidelines, but at some point
> > guidelines seems to have moved into policy, and users are using these
> > to clobber each other left and right. I think this is a looming threat
> > to Wikipedia. The bureacracy level is increasing every day. I don't
> > think that the benefits of the increased bureacracy outweigh the added
> > complexity. Obviously Wikipedia is a lot bigger than it used to be,
> > but I think the medicine might turn into a new disease.
> >
> > --
> > [[en:User:Dori]]
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
[[en:User:Dori]]


from_name: Theresa Knott

body:
> I'd somehow associated this user's behaviour as that of a sysop.
> Apologies. Was Vandalism_in_progress the correct place to report users
> in revert wars?

No reverting isn't vandalism. VIP is busy enough just dealing with
straightfowards George Busher is a wanker type vandalism.

Theresa


from_name: Nick Triantos

subject: [Wikitech-l] Debugging suggestions?

body:
I've got a strange problem on my installation of mediawiki (an extra
blank line is emitted as the first line of all pages from my site).
This apparently breaks the RSS feeds.

Can anyone suggest a good way to debug where this newline is coming
from?  I was hoping I can run index.php from the cmd-line, and then at
least be able to figure out what's happening here.

Interestingly, I made a second copy of the wiki software in which I've
been hacking in trying to debug this, and there, I see my shell prompt
as the first line of text.  So, something's pretty obviously shelling
out during init, but I've currently got no idea what is doing that.

thanks,
-Nick


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Debugging suggestions?

body:
On Dec 5, 2004, at 11:23 AM, Nick Triantos wrote:
> I've got a strange problem on my installation of mediawiki (an extra
> blank line is emitted as the first line of all pages from my site).
> This apparently breaks the RSS feeds.

Usually this is because some extra whitespace has crept into one of the
.php files.

PHP scripts are actually embedded into a surrounding file (generally
HTML), though in the case of 'biggish' apps like ours we've generally
got a bunch of include files which are code only; everything goes
inside <?php ... ?> tags. If there is a blank line at the start, or
more than a single newline at the end, then the extra space will be
output when the script is loaded. If this comes before output buffering
is started that can prevent the output of HTTP headers from the script,
or perhaps also damage gzip compression mode, etc.

Check for extra whitespace around the <?php ... ?> tags, particularly
in LocalSettings.php or other files you might have modified.

> Interestingly, I made a second copy of the wiki software in which I've
> been hacking in trying to debug this, and there, I see my shell prompt
> as the first line of text.  So, something's pretty obviously shelling
> out during init, but I've currently got no idea what is doing that.

Now that's just _weird_...

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20041205/2c3301b3/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Josh Campfield

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Proposed new language for Wikipedia

body:
I am fluent in Pennsylvania German and I'd like to do a WIkipedia in it. Pennsylvania German (or Pennsylvania Dutch, High German, or many other names) is spoken by up to 100,000 people in the USA and Canada, mainly in the states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Iowa, and around the city of Kitchener, Ontario. It is a blend of many German dialects but mostly unintelligible to someone who speaks "regular" German (Deutsch). I am a native of the area and, while I'm not a native speaker, I have taught myself the language.

Language Codes:
ISO 639-2: gem
SIL: pdc

Thank you!
Joshua Campfield
Womelsdorf, PA, USA

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


subject: [Wikitech-l] Debugging suggestions?

body:
I checked for that, and didn't find anything obvious (but I didn't read
through all the php files, just the usual suspects).

Is there any way to run mediawiki from the php command-line?  I'm hoping
for something like:
    php /path/to/mediawiki/index.php "Main_page"
or something like that.

thanks much,
-Nick

Brion Vibber wrote:

> On Dec 5, 2004, at 11:23 AM, Nick Triantos wrote:
>
>> I've got a strange problem on my installation of mediawiki (an extra
>> blank line is emitted as the first line of all pages from my site).
>> This apparently breaks the RSS feeds.
>
>
> Usually this is because some extra whitespace has crept into one of
> the .php files.
>
> PHP scripts are actually embedded into a surrounding file (generally
> HTML), though in the case of 'biggish' apps like ours we've generally
> got a bunch of include files which are code only; everything goes
> inside <?php ... ?> tags. If there is a blank line at the start, or
> more than a single newline at the end, then the extra space will be
> output when the script is loaded. If this comes before output
> buffering is started that can prevent the output of HTTP headers from
> the script, or perhaps also damage gzip compression mode, etc.
>
> Check for extra whitespace around the <?php ... ?> tags, particularly
> in LocalSettings.php or other files you might have modified.
>
>> Interestingly, I made a second copy of the wiki software in which
>> I've been hacking in trying to debug this, and there, I see my shell
>> prompt as the first line of text.  So, something's pretty obviously
>> shelling out during init, but I've currently got no idea what is
>> doing that.
>
>
> Now that's just _weird_...
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Debugging suggestions?

body:
On Dec 5, 2004, at 12:17 PM, Nick Triantos wrote:
> I checked for that, and didn't find anything obvious (but I didn't
> read through all the php files, just the usual suspects).

Have you tried a clean copy of the source?

> Is there any way to run mediawiki from the php command-line?  I'm
> hoping for something like:
>    php /path/to/mediawiki/index.php "Main_page"
> or something like that.

If you have a CGI-mode PHP executable, you can emulate a CGI
environment by setting a few environment variables. I wouldn't expect
this to be terribly enlightening, however; if it's adding an extra line
you'll probably get the same line but no additional information.

(Note that if you have AdminSettings.php set up, you can use
maintenance/eval.php to load up the MediaWiki environment and issue PHP
commands interactively in a shell. It's a little fragile, though. For
best results make sure PHP has GNU readline support compiled in.)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20041205/8cdbb3ed/attachment.pgp>