from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikitech-l] SoC: External Editor helper app

body:
On 5/3/06, Patrick Aljord <patcito at gmail.com> wrote:

> I want to do it in Qt/C++.

Good choice.

>The main functionalities will be the same
> as your perl script:
> - save
> - save & continue
> - diff
> - preview
> - cancel

Make sure you test how the app reacts in case of edit conflicts, I'm
not sure the current script handles them properly. Also check the
caching behavior. The current script may view out of date images, for
instance, after saving (it sometimes does, sometimes doesn't, probably
a race condition). A MediaWiki URL that ends with &action=purge should
override all caching.

It might also be nice to have an additional method of saving to the
server, simply by saving the file itself from the application. To do
this, you would have to monitor changes to the data. This should be
optional and quick to enable/disable from the UI (hotkey or visible
checkbox). Check out
http://www.zope.org/Members/Caseman/ExternalEditor/ - this is a
similar feature in Zope. The zopeedit file contains the helper
application, written in Python. It follows a different protocol than
MediaWiki, but may provide some inspiration.

Since the helper application will have to be capable of uploading
files, adding some additional MediaWiki upload functionality would be
a nice way to make the project a little larger. This would be an
interesting alternative to your other SoC application for improving
the upload process. There are currently a few batch upload utilities,
but the only cross-platform tool I've seen is written in Java and
rather slow.

Having the upload functionality in there would also be a good way to
get more people to install the tool. In the long run, it could be
enriched with even more client-side functionality such as simple bot
tasks.

> - ability to save sessions to remember which documents you were working on
> - select session upon start

Not sure this is very useful, since you're typically going to launch
the editor from a wiki when you have a need for it.

Erik


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] RfAs (was: Re:  Verifiability equating to notability)

body:
On 04/05/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> >Except that in the case of RfA, we don't even have agreed principles
> >that decisions should be based on, so all reasoning is good reasoning.
>
> For some values of good, obviously.
>
> My problem here is with the assertion that asking questions of
> candidates for adminship is in some way bad.  I really can't see how
> that could be a valid viewpoint.  One of the most pertinent questions
> I've seen asked of an admin candidate recently was whether they saw
> the role of admin more as that of policeman or janitor.  Asking that
> question is entirely consistent with adminship being no big deal, also
> entirely consistent with knowing in advance to whom we are giving the
> tools, and what they will do with them.  For my money we don't need
> policemen, but this is of course also just one person's view.

Well, I'm not sure how we got onto this exactly. Asking questions is
fine. Voting no because someone doesn't answer them (or within 24
hours!) is not. Voting no because someone asked questions on someone
else's RfA is not, either.

IMHO, having different users with different "standards" for admins is
pretty unmanageable. Some people think 500 edits is enough. Some think
3000 is enough. Those are two valid viewpoints, but they should not be
brought into conflict on each and every RfA. They should be debated
once and for all, consensus reached, then everyone follow the group
decision. So if the agreed threshold is 1000 edits, then no one should
ever vote no on a candidate, citing lack of edits, if they have more
than that.

Since Wikipedia is not a democracy, and since voting is evil, it does
not make sense to allow total freedom in voting on RfAs. It is not a
desirable goal.

I wrote a whole spiel on this at talk:RfA.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] We need a policy against vote-stacking

body:
On 04/05/06, Molu <loom91 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> No thanks. As you say, it's just informing people, and it's okay irrespective of sample selection methods. Wikipedia is not a democracy, there's no such thing as vote stacking. And please stop wheel-warring without consensus.

It's not a democracy, but it does rely on consensus. Therefore
techniques which interfere with the normal consensus-forming process
should be discouraged.

Steve


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Greg Sabino Mullane

subject: [Wikitech-l] Towards MW 2.0

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

> The the guys wanting to use Perl wouldn't need to re-invent the mysql
> backend :) Just throwing out ideas.

That's the easy part - I'm already running MW on PostgreSQL. :) Next step
is to move some of the logic into the database. *Then* we can port the
whole thing to Perl...

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg at turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200605040944
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFEWgWAvJuQZxSWSsgRAuRuAJ9OCf/9anNZsQITSPqUxdBhVRh+IgCg6izx
MuyZ1/golfwPVN00C8df11w=
=yLLs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Gallagher Mark George

subject: [WikiEN-l] Verifiability equating to notability

body:
G'day Steve,

> On 03/05/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > As for "an article with no claim to notability", I actually have no
> > idea what that phrase means.
>
> An article has to establish the notability of its subject. If it
> doesn't do that, it's subject to speedy deletion.
>
> ...I recite.

No, it has to *assert* the notability of its subject.  When clearing up CAT:CSD I see a lot of speedy taggings where the tagger simply figured "sure, there's an assertion of notability there, but I don't think it's good enough".  Wrong.

The question of whether an article establishes notability is not one that can, or should, be answered by a single admin working very very fast to delete as much stuff as quickly as possible.  Unfortunately there are a few admins who seem to think "well, it's tagged for speedy, who am I to judge?  That would be elitist."  Oh, and let's not forget the non-admin CVUers who encourage that view ...

<snip/>

Cheers,

--
MarkGallagher


from_name: Fastfission

body:
On 5/3/06, Ben McIlwain <cydeweys at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Way way way to subjective. RFC and arbcom would probably be a better option.
>
> That would take weeks, and by then the vote-stackers have long gotten
> away with it.  And I don't think vote-stacking is too subjective.  If
> you see someone recruiting votes, deal with them.  It's pretty simple.

Vote stacking is bad. But telling other people about things they might
be interested in participating in is not -- in fact it is often a good
way to combat vote stacking (people post things to this list, for
example, when it is clear that a small but organized POV minority is
trying to change things for the worst). The line between the two?
Blurry, quite subjective.

If you can come up with a policy which could be used to make a clear
distinction between the two practices, feel free to propose it. But
simply saying that vote stacking should be against the rules doesn't
quite get us there. There cannot be a rule which would prohibit people
talking to other editors about decisions taking place on other pages,
in fact our mediation process recommends people do just that.

FF


subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV majorities/minorities

body:
I think the ambiguity is necessary -- 10 fringe sources do not
outweigh 2 sources from recognized authorities. But there's no easy
way to define fringe and authoritative, and there never will be. It's
the sort of thing which requires careful and impartial judgment, which
is something which cannot be easily codified, and attempting to codify
it is a bad idea.

I don't think we should see ambiguous policies as a deficit. Some
things will necessarily always require being hashed out each and every
time they come up, and things like "undue weight", and knowing where
to apply it, are more heuristics towards framing the discussion in a
certain direction, not an easy road to an simple answer. Discussion
and cooperation among editors will always need to take place in all
contentious circumstances.

FF

On 5/2/06, Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill at yahoo.com> wrote:
> This regards Undue weight part of NPOV:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight
>
> There still seems to be a great deal of ambiguity, even among admins, as to what qualifies as a majority.  So here's a simple example to evaluate as a starting point.
>
> *View Moo has 3 sources that support it.
> *View Bark has 15 sources that support it.
>
> Which has the majority?  Should either be be dropped completely?  Should either be reduced to a footnote or an "other views" section deeper within the article? Again, for simplicity, all the sources are equally reliable, reputable, and prominent.
>
> Other than all or most of the sources of either being non-notable or biased, are there any circumstances in which you would reverse the majority/minority or consider Moo and Bark equal?
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone  calls to 30+ countries for just 2?/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Elliott F. Cable

subject: [Wikitech-l] Towards MW 2.0

body:
On May 4, 2006, at 1:11 PM, Rob Church wrote:
> On 04/05/06, Elliott F. Cable <ecable at avxw.com> wrote:
>> On May 4, 2006, at 9:57 AM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 11:44:52AM -0700, Carl Witty wrote:
>>>>> Maybe we should just drop the "1." and call the next release 7.0.
>>>>> Makes for
>>>>> less typing. Someone remind me which software project did that...
>>>>
>>>> GNU Emacs: went from version 1.1 to 1.12, then dropped the initial
>>>> "1"
>>>> and has continued from version 13 to version 21 (so far).
>>>
>>> Less has never had "traditional" version numbers; it's up near
>>> version
>>> 247 or something.
>> Mac OS X? Other way around - went from system 7, 8, OS 9 - then 10.1
>> (10), 10.2 (11), 10.3 (12), 10.4 (13) and soon, 10.5 (14) - I tend to
>> find that copying something apple did leads to success, ESPECIALLY
>> when they changed something - usually, when they admit they made a
>> mistake (very rare) and fix it in a given way (much less rare) then
>> they usually fix it 100%, and put lots of thought into their
>> decision. I see the fact that they ended up using a X.YY system means
>> we should stick to the same, but maybe that's just me.
>
> I can't believe that people are bothering to go out and research the
> version numbering schemes of different products in order to bolster
> this one's reputation through some implied connotation.
>
> What's the problem with sticking to 1.x.y, and incrementing the 1 when
> we can all agree that a single release has inserted something highly
> significant into the product?
>
> Don't count your bridges before you cross them. Don't worry about
> numbering your versions until you have them.
Was just kidding - and I wasn't saying we should change it, I was
vouching keeping it as it is (-:


from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

subject: [Wikitech-l] Towards MW 2.0

body:
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 11:44:52AM -0700, Carl Witty wrote:
> > Maybe we should just drop the "1." and call the next release 7.0. Makes for
> > less typing. Someone remind me which software project did that...
>
> GNU Emacs: went from version 1.1 to 1.12, then dropped the initial "1"
> and has continued from version 13 to version 21 (so far).

Less has never had "traditional" version numbers; it's up near version
247 or something.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

     A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
     Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

     A: Top-posting.
     Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?


subject: [Wikitech-l] Towards MW 2.0

body:
On May 4, 2006, at 1:55 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 04/05/06, Elliott F. Cable <ecable at avxw.com> wrote:
>> Try - mail, RSS, AIM, MSN, ICQ, iChat, 4x web interfaces, at least 30
>> forums, at least 50 wikis, IRC (usually in around 10 channels on 4
>> servers) Limewire/azeureus chat, SEE chat, ventrilo, teamspeak,
>> Squeak, skype - the list goes on. Telephone? Fax? Not to mention
>> people trying to swarm me in RL while I'm trying to communicate with
>> the really important ones online...
>
> How long does it take to notify everyone everytime you go on
> holidays? :)
I just don't take vacations without one of the laptops. Or at least
setting *EVERYTHING* up to forward to my PDAphone, if it's less than
2 days and I simply CAN'T take a computer - the biggest thing is I
have to get up progressively earlier each day - as of now, it already
takes about an hour and a half each morning to reply to e-mails,
posts, check edits to all the wikis, reply to IMs sent over the night
- and it's increasing more every day. I might just have to stop
sleeping.


from_name: Keith Old

body:
On 5/4/06, Gallagher Mark George <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au>
wrote:
>
>
> G'day Steve,
>
> > On 03/05/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > > As for "an article with no claim to notability", I actually have no
> > > idea what that phrase means.
> >
> > An article has to establish the notability of its subject. If it
> > doesn't do that, it's subject to speedy deletion.
> >
> > ...I recite.
>
> No, it has to *assert* the notability of its subject.  When clearing up
> CAT:CSD I see a lot of speedy taggings where the tagger simply figured
> "sure, there's an assertion of notability there, but I don't think it's good
> enough".  Wrong.
>
> The question of whether an article establishes notability is not one that
> can, or should, be answered by a single admin working very very fast to
> delete as much stuff as quickly as possible.  Unfortunately there are a few
> admins who seem to think "well, it's tagged for speedy, who am I to
> judge?  That would be elitist."  Oh, and let's not forget the non-admin
> CVUers who encourage that view ...
>
> <snip/>
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> MarkGallagher
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Mark,

You are 100% correct. While working as an Admin on speedy deletion, I often
come across articles which contain assertions of notability.

In such cases, I do some quick research on verifiable sources:

a) if there are assertions of notability which are not immediately available
I substitute a prod notice for a CSD nomination and make a note on the talk
page so people have five days to find sources and add them;

b) if I can find verifiable evidence to assert notability, I remove the CSD
tag and add something to the talk page - for example, a New York artist was
speedied yesterday and with quick research, I discovered a New York Times
review of an exhibition by the artist and added it to the article.

I also check the what links here even for articles where there is no
assertion of notability. If there is a link, I normally rewrite the article
to refer to the person linked to. I have created stubs on a Minnesota state
politician, a US Olympic swimmer and a New Zealand cricketer amongst others.

It means that fewer articles are deleted but we add information on more
notable topics and help to create an encyclopedia. I try to follow the
precept of "If in doubt, don't delete".

Regards

*Keith Old*
User:Capitalistroadster


from_name: Zoney

body:
On 04/05/06, Ben McIlwain <cydeweys at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I recently came across a very contentious Afd having to deal with the
> movement to impeach George W. Bush.  The discussion was overwhelmed with
> vote-stacking.  I caught two users doing it and temporarily blocked
> them, but was reverted by an admin who says it's "not in policy" that we
> can block for that.  I've also since discovered a third person who was
> vote-stacking.
>
> Vote-stacking is wrong, it is harmful to Wikipedia, and it needs to be
> discouraged and stopped.  The simple way to do this is to block users
> who are doing this.  If it's not in the policy now, it should be.
>
> I heard the argument, "Well, if you're just informing other users,
> that's not vote-stacking."  That's wrong on two counts.  First of all,
> all of this vote-stacking going on here was specifically encouraging
> people to come to the Afd and vote a specific way.  And, even if the
> message is "neutrally worded", it's still vote-stacking unless I'm
> sending it out to a random sample of Wikipedians.  Do you think these
> vote-stackers were using a random sample?  No.  They were sending the
> messages to people they know already vote their way.  In this case, it
> appears to be a combination of a What links here on the {{User
> republican}} userbox and an examination of which ways people voted on
> the previous Afd, and then selectively sending the message to just the
> people who previously voted in agreement with the vote-stackers views.
>
> We cannot put up with these attempts at gaming our consensus-based
> system.  Consensus doesn't work when it just becomes a numbers game of
> who can recruit the most votes.  And trying to make a rational decision
> about the merits of an article when a bunch of sheeple are coming in
> mindlessly on both sides and voting without even considering the issues
> is absurd.  We need to deal with this problem.  We need to modify our
> policy so that it IS a blockable offense to vote-stack and game the
> system.
>
> - --
> Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")

The entire concept of voting as used in Wikipedia for decisions like
deletion is very flawed. It's not particularly representative, and even if
it were, suggests that the majority view is always right *.

If anything, having users interested in the subject area informed of votes
perhaps improves the situation.

It's still a mess though - yet another one of Wikipedia's mechanisms that
performs very poorly.

Zoney

*It suggests that it's up to majority to decide what is fact. Expertise and
authority are completely disregarded (and if you don't use that system,
you're only left with Wikipedia's nonsensical relativism). NPOV is well and
good, but it's really only useful for *presenting* things in a neutral
fashion. The concept of what "things" are allowed (i.e. what is true
information, even if it's a matter of "is this verifiable information about
a view we can say that some people hold").

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


from_name: geni

body:
On 5/4/06, Ben McIlwain <cydeweys at gmail.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> geni wrote:
> > On 5/4/06, Rob <gamaliel8 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I'd think this counts as a disruption of the normal workings of afd
> >> and is blockable on those grounds.   Isn't this exactly why we were so
> >> concerned about userboxes - to prevent this sort of thing from
> >> happening?
> >
> > That would depend on which set of claims you belived.
> >
> > In any case it appears at least one of the people used a list compiled
> > from past AFD votes.
>
> Well, specifically, a list of all of the people who had voted Delete in
> the previous vote.  That user made no attempt to notify any of the Keep
> voters.  It's this kind of selective voting recruitment (aka
> vote-stacking) that is so harmful to Wikipedia.  When I canceled that
> Afd it was leaning heavily towards Delete, but that was only because two
> Delete vote-stackers had been out campaigning heavily and there was only
> one Keep vote-stacker who had just begun operations.  The end result
> would've just been another no consensus once both sides were "properly"
> marshaled.
>

And the problem with that is?

> The kind of actions I'm describing here are pretty clearly disruptive
> and work against the policies we have in place for deciding issues.
> It's extremely harmful.  Note that the ArbCom has already come out
> against vote-stacking, in one form or another, in three separate instances:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IZAK
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Guanaco%2C_MarkSweep%2C_et_al
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jason_Gastrich
>

Arbcom can to a large degree do what it likes. Votestacking is hard to
define. If I post a notice to the rational skecpticism wikiproject
about a AFD of some alt med article is that vote stacking?

> In the past many blocks have been issued to deal with these issues.  Yet
> suddenly we're running into a lot of resistance from people who are
> saying it isn't explicitly listed in policy.  Well, since policy is
> simply a written-down version of what happens in practice, we need to
> modify policy.  The only single diehard policy is "Wikipedia is an
> encyclopedia",

Wrong. NPOV is hard policy.

> and it's pretty clear that these vote-stacking campaigns
> I've been describing go against that ultimate goal of making the best
> encyclopedia we can.
>

Nah not really. They tend to nullify themselves quite effectively.

--
geni


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cyde should not have violated Deletion policy (

references:
<eeec757b0605032351n4c16083bwd43faae4de02f89e@mail.gmail.com>
	<f5pj52p612ca7j1o0ail46u5ckvsqqs6p4@4ax.com>
	<F8A8ED9A-5C24-4418-8E4E-CE00EE90B080@ctelco.net>

body:
I think Cyde did the right thing.  As I understand it, not one but
three separate attempts at vote-stacking were under way.  Better to
halt the fiasco quickly and to block the miscreants than to let them
stack votes and then try to wikilawyer their desired result in
deletion review.


body:
On 5/4/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:

> It looks a hell of a lot like using common sense.

[[Monty Hall problem]]. "Common sense" is not a valid justifcation for
descission makeing.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] vote-stacking and userboxes

body:
On 5/4/06, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as everybody probably knows here, userboxes made vote-stacking
> und campaigning easy, since one can easily find the "right" people
> to vote on a subject.
>

This time around the results of previous AFDs were used.

--
geni


from_name: Patrick Aljord

body:
On 5/4/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> Make sure you test how the app reacts in case of edit conflicts, I'm
> not sure the current script handles them properly. Also check the
> caching behavior. The current script may view out of date images, for
> instance, after saving (it sometimes does, sometimes doesn't, probably
> a race condition). A MediaWiki URL that ends with &action=purge should
> override all caching.
ok so before uploading a modified file back to the server I could do a
&action=purge and check the diff.

> It might also be nice to have an additional method of saving to the
> server, simply by saving the file itself from the application. To do
> this, you would have to monitor changes to the data. This should be
> optional and quick to enable/disable from the UI (hotkey or visible
> checkbox).
great idea, I'm going to add it to the todo list :)

>
> Since the helper application will have to be capable of uploading
> files, adding some additional MediaWiki upload functionality would be
> a nice way to make the project a little larger. This would be an
> interesting alternative to your other SoC application for improving
> the upload process. There are currently a few batch upload utilities,
> but the only cross-platform tool I've seen is written in Java and
> rather slow.

you mean a full upload form with the choice of category and all? a
Qt/C++ version of the wikimedia php page? guess it could be done but
I'd need your help about how to get the categories names from the
wikimedia db, is there a protocol or something or I'll just use http
and fetch them like the ee.pl?

> Having the upload functionality in there would also be a good way to
> get more people to install the tool. In the long run, it could be
> enriched with even more client-side functionality such as simple bot
> tasks.
>
> > - ability to save sessions to remember which documents you were working on
> > - select session upon start
>
ok I'll postpone those then.

thanx again for all your answers

Pat


from_name: Mark Gallagher

body:
Dan Rosenthal wrote:

[irritating top-posting fixed]

> On 5/3/06, Gallagher Mark George
> <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>> The question of whether an article establishes notability is not
>> one that can, or should, be answered by a single admin working very
>> very fast to delete as much stuff as quickly as possible.
>> Unfortunately there are a few admins who seem to think "well, it's
>> tagged for speedy, who am I to judge?  That would be elitist."  Oh,
>> and let's not forget the non-admin CVUers who encourage that view
>> ...
>
> Uh, I'm one of said non-admin CVU-ers, and I don't encourage that
> view. On the other hand, I could CSD a half dozen highly notable
> subjects on wikipedia simply because the articles make no assertion
> of the notablity. The fact is, that the vast majority of speedy
> deletions are shite articles,
> either vandalism/vanity, myspace, external redirects, etc. Are you
> saying those shouldn't be speedied? We all know that AfD is totally
> free from vote-stacking and any other forum of corruption. *cough*I

Nothing wrong with non-admins doing RC/newpage/etc. patrol; I did it
myself for ages before adminship was thrust upon me.  Being a CVU
member, eh, well, nobody's perfect.

You can't take the half the sentence in isolation.  I was referring
specifically to "non-admin CVUers who encourage [the view that anything
tagged for speedy *must* be deleted]".  A non-admin CVUer who doesn't
encourage that view is, therefore, beyond my scope.

As for "the fact is ..." umm, yes ... I *know*, quite well, what the
articles that usually crop up in CAT:CSD look like.  But thanks for the
tip anyway.  I speedy dozens of articles every time I go RC patrolling
or (more often) clearing out CSD or (surprisingly) reading the latest
list of AfD nominations ... and despite this, there's still several
articles that nobody in their right mind would want to speedy, but
someone's tagged them anyway.  Oh, and often you get someone with "CVU
member" proudly displayed on their userpage complaining that you've
disrupted their hard work by refusing to delete someone else's!

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.2/330 - Release Date: 3/05/2006


body:
On 5/4/06, Patrick Aljord <patcito at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/4/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Make sure you test how the app reacts in case of edit conflicts, I'm
> > not sure the current script handles them properly. Also check the
> > caching behavior. The current script may view out of date images, for
> > instance, after saving (it sometimes does, sometimes doesn't, probably
> > a race condition). A MediaWiki URL that ends with &action=purge should
> > override all caching.
> ok so before uploading a modified file back to the server I could do a
> &action=purge and check the diff.

What diff? There are no diffs on files, only on pages. Let me be extra
clear on this: ee.pl has two primary functions, editing text or
changing files (images, sounds, videos etc.) on the server. These are
very different in nature. Just double-checking that you've noticed
that.

I think what you should do is first test the upload process in ee.pl a
bit and see under which conditions you're seeing old files rather than
the uploaded ones. If it's related to the processing of the image on
the wiki, you could try simply adding some sleep() between the upload
and the page view (making that customizable would probably be a good
idea).

> you mean a full upload form with the choice of category and all?

No, just a very simple file/description combination. The description
is wikitext, so the user can add the categories or license manually.
It might be nice to have two text areas "Prepend to all:" and "Append
to all:" in addition to the individual file descriptions.

Erik


body:
On 5/4/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> geni wrote:
> >
> > On 5/4/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> It looks a hell of a lot like using common sense.
> > [[Monty Hall problem]]. "Common sense" is not a valid justification for
> > decision making.
> >
> The reason the [[Monty Hall problem]] is a "problem" is because it appears
> to turn common sense on its head: the "exception that proves the rule".
>

That phrase makes no sense in commonly used modern english english.

> Just because there exist carefully designed situations in which common sense
> will lead you up a carefully prepared garden path does not invalidate the
> application of common sense in each and every situation.
>

Ok then how about:

[[Proof that 0.999... equals 1]] or most of [[Quantum mechanics]]

Since there is no useful way of telling when "common sense" is going
to break down it's use over logical deduction from evidence is not
jusifiable.

> The reason it is called "common sense" is after all because it commonly
> makes sense.

Our article on the subject disagres

--
geni


list: commons-l

subject: [Commons-l] FlickrLickr hits 5K

body:
Thanks to some busy new users, FlickrLickr has recently crossed the
5,000 image upload threshold:

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=FlickrLickr&dbname=commonswiki_p

FlickrLickr is a collaborative tool for choosing free content pictures
from Flickr to upload to Wikimedia Commons. See

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:FlickrLickr

for details. To join, drop me an e-mail.

And to all those who still have slices to finish: I'm watching you! ;-)

Erik


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] Towards MW 2.0

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> Gregory Szorc wrote:
>
>>I was curious what the current plans are for MW 2.0.  Will it just be
>>announced sometime during the quarterly release schedule?  Will it be a
>>considerable rewrite?
>
>
> Whether there will even be a 2.0 is an open question. So far we've made huge
> changes in internal structure incrementally, without having to rewrite
> everything, and there's no obvious reason why this can't continue.

I suggested calling 1.5 2.0, but that didn't quite happen. One of the
problems with it is that you usually expect a change in major version number
to come along with significant user-visible changes. But in the current
development model, you can't expect two big things to happen at once.

Gregory suggests calling the MediaWiki with refactored code "1.99" and then
calling this refactored code plus some extra features "2.0". I suspect the
two would more likely be tagged 1.7 and 1.8.

Maybe we should just drop the "1." and call the next release 7.0. Makes for
less typing. Someone remind me which software project did that...

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Commons-l] Direct copy to commons

body:
Brianna Laugher schrieb:
>> I plan on another script that looks for, say, 20 commons-compatible
>> images on a wikipedia (or wikibooks) which are /not/ on commons yet.
>> These should be displayed with thumbnail images, links, etc. There would
>> be a checkbox in front of each, and the checked ones can be uploaded en
>> block to the commons. Would that be desirable?
>>
>
> Uh... if it just says "these images have been tagged GFDL/PD/whatever,
> do you want to transfer them to the Commons?" I would have to say no.
> Transferring images is a good opportunity to re-examine the licenses
> and sources provided for many images on local projects, which are
> often quite suspect! Transferrers should be quite stringent in
> requiring a source (that if online, is actually *checked*) and a
> license justification - for non "(PD/GFDL/whatever)-self" items. For
> self created items, some common sense is needed... low res items
> should generally be treated with a great deal of suspicion.
>
I put a version of what I imagined earlier live at
    http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/pushforcommons.php

I have disabeled the upload part, so it is currently only usable as a
"bad license hunter". The image name leads to the description page, the
image links to its "big" version.
An image on commons with the same name (so it exists) is displayed in
the "commons" column; also, a note is "commons" is mentioned in the
description, indicating that the image is on commons under another name.

Magnus

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20060504/50c2b54a/attachment.pgp


body:
On 5/4/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/4/06, Patrick Aljord <patcito at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/4/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Make sure you test how the app reacts in case of edit conflicts, I'm
> > > not sure the current script handles them properly. Also check the
> > > caching behavior. The current script may view out of date images, for
> > > instance, after saving (it sometimes does, sometimes doesn't, probably
> > > a race condition). A MediaWiki URL that ends with &action=purge should
> > > override all caching.
> > ok so before uploading a modified file back to the server I could do a
> > &action=purge and check the diff.
>
> What diff? There are no diffs on files, only on pages. Let me be extra
> clear on this: ee.pl has two primary functions, editing text or
> changing files (images, sounds, videos etc.) on the server. These are
> very different in nature. Just double-checking that you've noticed
> that.
ok got it.
I already installed ee.pl and played with it. I started looking at the
code yesterday, I don't know perl but I could get the gist of it, need
to study it more though.
thanx for all your all suggestions.

Pat


from_name: Guettarda

body:
On 5/4/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/4/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> > b) Wikiproject members have better things to do than go over their
> >    content looking for stuff to delete, anyway!
>
> With the recent explosive growth of article rating programs (as pushed
> by the WP:1.0 people), a number of projects are doing just that.  (Not
> necessarily looking for things to delete in particular; but those tend
> to drop out naturally when going through articles to grade.)

Article rating programs?  Can you point me towards some of them?  Thanks

Ian


from_name: Raphael Wegmann

subject: [WikiEN-l] vote-stacking and userboxes

body:
Hi,

as everybody probably knows here, userboxes made vote-stacking
und campaigning easy, since one can easily find the "right" people
to vote on a subject.

Maybe a technical solution to this problem is possible.
What if a bot substitutes all userboxes on the user-pages?
Maybe it's even possible to somehow "tag" a template,
so it is always substituted? This could be used on warning
templates as well.

Of course this wouldn't eliminate vote-stacking at all,
since one can still find the "right" people on various
Wikiproject pages, but IMHO it's still a step in the right
direction.

best regards
--
Raphael


subject: [WikiEN-l] RfAs (was: Re: Verifiability equating to notability)

body:
On 04/05/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> It would be better to have a guideline which says someone should not
> even be nominated until they have passed agreed milestones, then we
> can assess candidates on their merits with the knowledge that they
> have passed some kind of minimum standard of wikipedian-ness.

Kind of like a speedy reject? Or more politely, a "speedy come back
later". Sounds good to me. I propose 1000 edits, including 100 outside
the article and user namespaces, and at least 500 within the article
namespace. Also minimum 3 months active participation.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] vote-stacking and userboxes

body:
On 04/05/06, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
>
> Of course this wouldn't eliminate vote-stacking at all,
> since one can still find the "right" people on various
> Wikiproject pages, but IMHO it's still a step in the right
> direction.

There are still categories. Also, if the userbox itself contains a
link back to the template, you're back we're your started. I don't
think simple sneaky technical solutions to the userbox problem are
going to get anywhere, due to the mousetrap/smarter mouse problem.
This is a social problem that absolutely needs a social solution.

Steve


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Thu, 4 May 2006 14:59:36 +0200, you wrote:

>> It would be better to have a guideline which says someone should not
>> even be nominated until they have passed agreed milestones, then we
>> can assess candidates on their merits with the knowledge that they
>> have passed some kind of minimum standard of wikipedian-ness.

>Kind of like a speedy reject? Or more politely, a "speedy come back
>later". Sounds good to me. I propose 1000 edits, including 100 outside
>the article and user namespaces, and at least 500 within the article
>namespace. Also minimum 3 months active participation.

Yes, like Fail: Encourage at the Regular Commissions Board.

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


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

body:
On 5/4/06, Pete Bartlett <pcb21 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org>
> >How does an article go about asserting the notability of its subject?
> >What would be an example of an article which asserts notability but
> >doesn't establish it?
>
> Those poor fellows who make music in garages in suburban towns in
> the American Midwest seem to be a particular favourite target, so let's
> give an example involving them:
>
> "
> '''Hormonal Screamings'' is a rock band hailing from Houghton, Michigan.
> Next year they are going to take over the world.
> "
>
> Editors would be permitted to delete that.
>
So that's an example of an article which you feel *doesn't* assert
notability.  It still doesn't answer the question of what it means to
assert notability, and it isn't an example of an article which asserts
notability but doesn't establish it.

I still have no idea what it means to "assert notability" or what "an
article with no claim to notability" is.

Anthony


from_name: Kirill Lokshin

body:
On 5/4/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> b) Wikiproject members have better things to do than go over their
>    content looking for stuff to delete, anyway!

With the recent explosive growth of article rating programs (as pushed
by the WP:1.0 people), a number of projects are doing just that.  (Not
necessarily looking for things to delete in particular; but those tend
to drop out naturally when going through articles to grade.)

Kirill Lokshin


from_name: Chad Perrin

subject: [Wikitech-l] Towards MW 2.0

body:
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 01:04:42PM -0800, Elliott F. Cable wrote:
> Mac OS X? Other way around - went from system 7, 8, OS 9 - then 10.1
> (10), 10.2 (11), 10.3 (12), 10.4 (13) and soon, 10.5 (14) - I tend to
> find that copying something apple did leads to success, ESPECIALLY
> when they changed something - usually, when they admit they made a
> mistake (very rare) and fix it in a given way (much less rare) then
> they usually fix it 100%, and put lots of thought into their
> decision. I see the fact that they ended up using a X.YY system means
> we should stick to the same, but maybe that's just me.

There's some truth in that -- but you might want to think about all the
implications of their decisions.  The reason for the change in version
numbering for MacOS seems to have been made for reasons other than how
pretty the version numbers look.

After all, the version numbers are largely targeted at technically
oriented people who just want a sense of continuity to the versioning.
The reason there's a 10.x anything is that MacOS X followed MacOS 9.
They're dragging out the 10.x because of the association of 10 with X.

The real marketing decision on the front-end was to use "X" in the OS
name after the rewrite and stuff like "Panther" and "Tiger" for
versions.

In fact, they may well end up going to 10.x.x if this gets dragged out
long enough to make it necessary to avoid a 10.247 version number.  I
think it's a lot more likely they'll go the Emacs/Java route, though,
and drop the 10. part of the version numbering, if they don't toss out
their current numbering system entirely and do another significant
paradigm shift in the way they present their OS to the world instead.

--
Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"A script is what you give the actors.  A program
is what you give the audience." - Larry Wall


from_name: Angela

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Cyde should not have violated Deletion policy
	(Johntex)

body:
On 5/4/06, NSLE (Wikipedia) <nsle.wikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
> What was the AFD?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush_%282nd_nomination%29

It's back on AfD, and also on deletion review and AN/I.

Angela


subject: [Wikitech-l] Towards MW 2.0

body:
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 12:59:40PM -0800, Elliott F. Cable wrote:
> >
> > Speaking just for myself here . . .
> > I don't need *yet another interface* for dealing with the world.  It's
> > hard enough just keeping up with email and the telephone.  Frankly,
> > I'd
> > need newsgroups to notify me by email when something new arrived.
>
> Try - mail, RSS, AIM, MSN, ICQ, iChat, 4x web interfaces, at least 30
> forums, at least 50 wikis, IRC (usually in around 10 channels on 4
> servers) Limewire/azeureus chat, SEE chat, ventrilo, teamspeak,
> Squeak, skype - the list goes on. Telephone? Fax? Not to mention
> people trying to swarm me in RL while I'm trying to communicate with
> the really important ones online...

Oh, yeah, I use RSS, AIM, MSN, ICQ, YM, IRC, and a boatload of web
interfaces (wikis, fora, et cetera), too.  I try to keep funnelling the
really important stuff into email, though.  Thus, I get email alerts
from all the web stuff that supports it, and I don't really need to put
any effort into IMs because they make noise at me when there's incoming
communication.

The point, at any rate, is this: I don't want to gratuitously add yet
another interface to my information overload.  When I have a choice
between sending something to my email inbox or adding another, separate
system of communication, I'll send it to email.

--
Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
unix virus: If you're using a unixlike OS, please forward
this to 20 others and erase your system partition.


from_name: julieharding1 at charter.net

subject: [WikiEN-l] More Angry Admin Abuse

body:
---- Bacchante Maenad <bacchante at gmail.com> wrote:
>Why are you competing with him?  Do you really want to have another username, or are you just being sarcastic?  Stop being a booger, and decide if this is something that you really want to do, or if you are just trying to torture the heck out of yourself.

 Hi,
>   I tried again to create a username and predictably the self described
> angry Wikipedia admin username, Freakofnurture, immediately blocked me from
> editing.  The name I choose was "Even Small Children Can Edit Wikipedia" and
> his explanation is "yep, and i'm keeping it safe for them".  It's curious
> how this person became an admin, being so angry, his consistent not assuming
> good faith and not being genuine in his communications.  It seems in the
> wikipedia user-space there is plenty of room for anger and nastiness and not
> much for humor.
>
> Bacchante
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


list: foundation-l

from_name: folengo at netcourrier.com

subject:
[Foundation-l] The status of smaller languages on the Wikimedia
	Commons

body:
Since yesterday, smaller languages have been removed from the multilingual links displayed on the Commons' Main Page. Most removed languages are languages with a smaller Wikipedia community, like Arabic, Indonesian, Welsh, Danish, Korean, Romanian, Russian, Vietnamese, Turkish, but a few larger languages, like Spanish, Japanese or Swedish have been removed too.

I cannot spend my time reverting the page, so I ask for your help.

The initiator of the change contends that the communities he punishes have not been quick enough to update the page in their language. To this I object that he did not seriously take contact with these communities and ask them in a polite manner to perform the updates he wishes.

Do you think imposing smaller languages the same pace as that of the larger ones is fair ?

Couldn't we have, like in sports different categories (junior, senior, men, women seldom compete in the same categories in sports)  with expectations and rules differentiated in function of the size of a  language community ?

Do you think a regime of the bigger boys on the block punishing the smaller ones is what we need on a Wikimedia project ?


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Rajesh Olafson

subject: [Wikitech-l] importing content to mediawiki

body:
Hello,

I am a little new to mediawiki, and I am trying to move content from an old
glossary database to my mediawiki installation.

The content of the current database simply consists of terms [>4,000] and
associated definitions - basically 2 fields.

What is  the easiest way to import this into mediawiki?

Do I simply export my current db to the XML format at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Export#Export_format (leaving the
irrelvant fields blank) and then use the
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_dumps#importDump.php script?

Thank you for any help you can provide.

Rajesh.


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] More Angry Admin Abuse

body:
On May 4, 2006, at 2:51 PM, Bacchante Maenad wrote:

> Hi,
>   I tried again to create a username and predictably the self
> described
> angry Wikipedia admin username, Freakofnurture, immediately blocked
> me from
> editing.  The name I choose was "Even Small Children Can Edit
> Wikipedia" and
> his explanation is "yep, and i'm keeping it safe for them".  It's
> curious
> how this person became an admin, being so angry, his consistent not
> assuming
> good faith and not being genuine in his communications.  It seems
> in the
> wikipedia user-space there is plenty of room for anger and
> nastiness and not
> much for humor.

I've got an idea. Stop registering inflammatory usernames and we'll
stop blocking them.

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


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] blocked!

body:
The blocks are not to do with you; they're due to the way AOL's
internet proxies work and the fact that AOL refuses to provide any
uniquely identifying information in queries coming from their proxies.

We attempt to not keep AOL addresses blocked for long.

-Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] blocked!

body:
---- Solo999uk at aol.com wrote:
>Have you tried looking around at Wikipedia for an administrative name or contact that you can call to find out why you are being blocked?  What are you writing that is bothering them so badly?  If you have a problem with administration, then you have to take one step further up and go to supervising administration to make sure that everyone is being just and fair.  But be honest with yourself.  Are you sure there is nothing that would offend anyone in what you have sent?  If there is not, then take a deep breath, use the world wide web, and find a supervising administrative contact.  Everyone has a right to their own opinion, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

I have been blocked and not for the first time since joining wikipedia 10
> days ago.
>
> Each time I get blocked a different IP address is quoted and a different
> false 'offence' cited which could not possibly concern me directly.
>
> Can you please help to sort ASAP.
>
> The blocker this time is 'canadian caeser'.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


references:
<6f9e671a78.71a786f9e6@student.canberra.edu.au>
	<71cd4dd90605040957v3b4c8e29t3e8c3fdfc3ed4f2c@mail.gmail.com>
	<445A4FAB.1080704@student.canberra.edu.au>

body:
On 5/4/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> G'day Anthony,
> > On 5/3/06, Gallagher Mark George
> > <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> >> No, it has to *assert* the notability of its subject.  When
> >> clearing up CAT:CSD I see a lot of speedy taggings where the tagger
> >> simply figured "sure, there's an assertion of notability there, but
> >> I don't think it's good enough".  Wrong.
> >
> > How does an article go about asserting the notability of its subject?
> >  What would be an example of an article which asserts notability but
> > doesn't establish it?
>
> An article saying "Joe Bloggs is a man from Golbourn" would be speedy
> deletable, because it doesn't assert that Joe Bloggs is in any way
> notable (it's also obnoxious, because it just assumes that everyone
> knows where Golbourn is).
>
> "Joe Bloggs is a man from Golbourn who won the Nobel Prize in partying
> down!" would be speedy deletable, because it's nonsense.
>
> "Joe Bloggs is a man from Golbourn who won the Nobel Prize in physics."
> would be sufficient, in my book.
>
OK, so being from Golbourn isn't notable, but winning the Nobel Prize
in physics is (at least in your book).

Any other trait, I guess I just gotta guess.

> "He won the nobel prize!" under the title "Joe Bloggs" would be speedy
> deletable because of a lack of context and a desire to see how Jimbo
> would react.
>
Would "Joe Bloggs won the nobel prize." be speedy deleteable (assuming
it was true, and not patent nonsense).  If so, why wouldn't we want
the otherwise deleting admin to just substitute the name for "He" and
the period for exclamation point?  If not, which nobel prizes are
notable, and which aren't?

Anthony


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Foundation-l] RfC: A Free Content and Expression Definition

body:
On 5/4/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> I really think the question has to be defined more specifically
> though.  What is Wikipedia trying to accomplish?  Are they trying to
> obey the laws of the countries they operate in, or are they willing to
> break those laws if they can get away with it?

I think we need to distinguish three possible outcomes:
a) A court rules against the Foundation
b) A court rules against the local chapter
c) A court rules against an individual contributor

And at least four risk factors:
1) copyright infringement
2) libel
3) pornography
4) other illegal content.

A careful evaluation of the combination of these factors, in addition
to the gravity of the case and its consequences for the encyclopedia
and our other projects, is what any response should be based on. For
instance, I think that outcome b) is absolutely unacceptable and must
be fought at almost any cost. Even in a trivial case, it makes sense
to go through the courts if the alternative is a precedent of chapter
liability.

We might ignore a national law that defines nudity as pornography,
fight a ruling which finds public domain reproductions to be
copyrightable, or accept a special case, like the copyright claim on
the Eiffel Tower light decorations, because it's not worth fighting.
Hopefully, our case by case answers will over time evolve into
reasonably general policies. That process can perhaps be sped up
through legal expert opinion, paid for if necessary.

Erik


from_name: GerardM

body:
Hoi,
This seems to be yet another fine mess that the Commons crowd is
getting itself into. The question is when will they learn that they
are serving the other projects and that their good intentions have
resulted in projects NOT adopting Commons because of the fiendly
cooperation as it is perceived.

What do they think they achieve by doing this? Is this in the interest
of the projects? Is this the considered opinion of the Commons
community or is it a solitary excercise? It is indeed a great way of
creating more hostility.

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 5/4/06, folengo at netcourrier.com <folengo at netcourrier.com> wrote:
> Since yesterday, smaller languages have been removed from the multilingual links displayed on the Commons' Main Page. Most removed languages are languages with a smaller Wikipedia community, like Arabic, Indonesian, Welsh, Danish, Korean, Romanian, Russian, Vietnamese, Turkish, but a few larger languages, like Spanish, Japanese or Swedish have been removed too.
>
> I cannot spend my time reverting the page, so I ask for your help.
>
> The initiator of the change contends that the communities he punishes have not been quick enough to update the page in their language. To this I object that he did not seriously take contact with these communities and ask them in a polite manner to perform the updates he wishes.
>
> Do you think imposing smaller languages the same pace as that of the larger ones is fair ?
>
> Couldn't we have, like in sports different categories (junior, senior, men, women seldom compete in the same categories in sports)  with expectations and rules differentiated in function of the size of a  language community ?
>
> Do you think a regime of the bigger boys on the block punishing the smaller ones is what we need on a Wikimedia project ?
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: freakofnurture

subject: [WikiEN-l] More Angry Admin Abuse

body:
Interestingly, this is the same troll that registered "User:Let's Get High
And Edit Wikipedia" (see also
<http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-March/041218.html>). Get
a life, stop creating sockpuppets, and take a shot at usefully contributing.

--user:freakofnurture
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/More-Angry-Admin-Abuse-t1560623.html#a4239186
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


from_name: Arbeo M

body:
That tiny '+...' link for "all languages" is not ideal either.

Arbeo

On 5/4/06, folengo at netcourrier.com <folengo at netcourrier.com> wrote:
>
> Since yesterday, smaller languages have been removed from the multilingual
> links displayed on the Commons' Main Page. Most removed languages are
> languages with a smaller Wikipedia community, like Arabic, Indonesian,
> Welsh, Danish, Korean, Romanian, Russian, Vietnamese, Turkish, but a few
> larger languages, like Spanish, Japanese or Swedish have been removed too.
>
> I cannot spend my time reverting the page, so I ask for your help.
>
> The initiator of the change contends that the communities he punishes have
> not been quick enough to update the page in their language. To this I object
> that he did not seriously take contact with these communities and ask them
> in a polite manner to perform the updates he wishes.
>
> Do you think imposing smaller languages the same pace as that of the
> larger ones is fair ?
>
> Couldn't we have, like in sports different categories (junior, senior,
> men, women seldom compete in the same categories in sports)  with
> expectations and rules differentiated in function of the size of a  language
> community ?
>
> Do you think a regime of the bigger boys on the block punishing the
> smaller ones is what we need on a Wikimedia project ?
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


references:
<6f9e671a78.71a786f9e6@student.canberra.edu.au>
	<71cd4dd90605040957v3b4c8e29t3e8c3fdfc3ed4f2c@mail.gmail.com>
	<445A4FAB.1080704@student.canberra.edu.au>
	<71cd4dd90605041305r3faea2a3ofc38d8c3c9352e50@mail.gmail.com>
	<445A6007.2000703@student.canberra.edu.au>

body:
On 5/4/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>
> G'day Anthony,
>
> > On 5/4/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>  >
> >>"He won the nobel prize!" under the title "Joe Bloggs" would be speedy
> >>deletable because of a lack of context and a desire to see how Jimbo
> >>would react.
> >
> > Would "Joe Bloggs won the nobel prize." be speedy deleteable (assuming
> > it was true, and not patent nonsense).  If so, why wouldn't we want
> > the otherwise deleting admin to just substitute the name for "He" and
> > the period for exclamation point?  If not, which nobel prizes are
> > notable, and which aren't?
>
> You'll have to ask Jimbo about that one.
>
> Serves me right for relying on an incident hardly anyone knew about (and
> fewer remember) for humour ...
>
Heh, I should have known there was something you were talking about
that I hadn't heard about when you mentioned Jimbo.

Of course, the whole concept that "assertion of notability" is a
meaningful standard is rather foreign to me.

Anthony


body:
I'm not sure why this needs to be discussed on foundation-l. The relevant page:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Lang-mp&action=history

There doesn't seem to have been much discussion about this yet.

On 5/4/06, folengo at netcourrier.com <folengo at netcourrier.com> wrote:

> Do you think imposing smaller languages the same
> pace as that of the larger ones is fair ?

That depends on the changes which are asked for. If it's about
updating the pic of the day, then it only takes one or two dedicated
individuals to do that. When you have a low number of required updates
per day, update frequency is actually a fairly unbiased criterion of
comparing languages, as opposed to the article count we use on
Wikipedia to determine visibility of language links.

If the update conditions are clearly defined, reasonable, and applied
fairly and consistently to restore or remove links, it doesn't sound
like such a bad idea.

Erik


from_name: Paweł Dembowski

body:
GerardM napisa?u:

> Hoi,
> This seems to be yet another fine mess that the Commons crowd is
> getting itself into. The question is when will they learn that they
> are serving the other projects and that their good intentions have
> resulted in projects NOT adopting Commons because of the fiendly
> cooperation as it is perceived.

> What do they think they achieve by doing this? Is this in the interest
> of the projects? Is this the considered opinion of the Commons
> community or is it a solitary excercise? It is indeed a great way of
> creating more hostility.

> Thanks,
>     GerardM

It was a solitary decision by Arnomane. He does raise a good point -
"it does harm severely the up to date localised pages if you need to
search them between lots of other links, others are still accessible
directly" - there is a link to "other languages" at the end of the
language list, so nothing is lost, really, just made less prominent,
although I think that making the links to more up-to-date languages bigger
and the other ones smaller would probably be a better idea.

--
Ausir
Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia
http://pl.wikipedia.org


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject:
[Foundation-l] The status of smaller languages on the Wikimedia
 Commons

body:
Pawe? Dembowski wrote:
> GerardM napisa?u:
>
>
>> Hoi,
>> This seems to be yet another fine mess that the Commons crowd is
>> getting itself into. The question is when will they learn that they
>> are serving the other projects and that their good intentions have
>> resulted in projects NOT adopting Commons because of the fiendly
>> cooperation as it is perceived.
>>
>
>
>> What do they think they achieve by doing this? Is this in the interest
>> of the projects? Is this the considered opinion of the Commons
>> community or is it a solitary excercise? It is indeed a great way of
>> creating more hostility.
>>
>
>
>> Thanks,
>>     GerardM
>>
>
> It was a solitary decision by Arnomane. He does raise a good point -
> "it does harm severely the up to date localised pages if you need to
> search them between lots of other links, others are still accessible
> directly" - there is a link to "other languages" at the end of the
> language list, so nothing is lost, really, just made less prominent,
> although I think that making the links to more up-to-date languages bigger
> and the other ones smaller would probably be a better idea.
Hoi,
Does it really ? When you are looking for information, and you are
looking for it in your language, you do not care if the information is
correct in Dutch Farsi Russian Chinese German or French when you do not
read those languages. When you insist on making some languages less
prominent, by inference the people who use these languages are less
prominent. There is a word for it ..

It is abundantly true that we need better support for the localisation
of our project and of our software. There is a subcommittee that deals
with communication and translation. I am sure that they were consulted
before these punitive measures were enacted.

Thanks,
   GerardM


from_name: Delphine Ménard

body:
On 5/4/06, folengo at netcourrier.com <folengo at netcourrier.com> wrote:
> Since yesterday, smaller languages have been removed from the multilingual links displayed on the Commons' Main Page. Most removed languages are languages with a smaller Wikipedia community, like Arabic, Indonesian, Welsh, Danish, Korean, Romanian, Russian, Vietnamese, Turkish, but a few larger languages, like Spanish, Japanese or Swedish have been removed too.
>
> I cannot spend my time reverting the page, so I ask for your help.
>
> The initiator of the change contends that the communities he punishes have not been quick enough to update the page in their language. To this I object that he did not seriously take contact with these communities and ask them in a polite manner to perform the updates he wishes.
>
> Do you think imposing smaller languages the same pace as that of the larger ones is fair ?
>
> Couldn't we have, like in sports different categories (junior, senior, men, women seldom compete in the same categories in sports)  with expectations and rules differentiated in function of the size of a  language community ?

Who would have ever thought I would actually agree with Teofilo on anything? :-)

While I believe I see the reasoning about getting rid of the "smaller"
languages on the main page, while I understand the problem of having
outdated main pages, I totally agree that smaller languages should not
be penalized in accessing commons.

I am not going to argue that Mediawiki is not fit for a multilingual
website today, although that is probably the primary problem of
commons.

This said, I believe that a mid-way can be found.

How about launching a massive translation rally (A translsation of the
week maybe?) of Commons main page that would translate in smaller
languages a "default" type of main page that does not need to be
updated?

I am thinking a page that states the purpose of commons, displays pic
of the week and media of the week and maybe a disclaimer that says
that English is the default language for current policies and such,
please refer to it to understand how commons work. Nothing fancy, but
at least with the main important pages (even in English) displayed and
the useful links.

Cheers,

Delphine

--
~notafish


body:
---- Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 4 May 2006 20:36:57 +0200, you wrote:
> You are causing competition and taking away from the meaning of wikipedia!
Forgive me for being crude, but how much of the world has enough intelligence to write on the subjects that your cite needs?  And then yet, to do it thoroughly enough to keep visitors coming back on a regular basis?  I think you may need to consider a new plan.  Food for thought.

> >I agree that edit counts are *relatively* meaningless, but people use
> >them anyway. The reason I support formalising them as a requirement,
> >is to prevent people citing lack of edit counts for increasingly high
> >limits.  Once we fix that 1000 edits is enough to be an admin, "not
> >enough edits" will cease to be a reasonable reason to oppose a person
> >with 2000, for instance.
>
> Indeed.  And it will deter those who self-nominate after their third
> edit.  Just as with notability criteria we can, by consensus,
> de-emphasise those things which some have thought significant but
> others have sown are not.  A low edit count number will make it plain
> that edit counts are indeed meaningless.
>
> Guy (JzG)
> --
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
---- "BJ?rn Lindqvist" <bjourne at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/4/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/4/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> > > A bridge expert knows that it *is* an important bridge.

> >Star Trek is not in the encyclopedia!  Only areas of expertise and proveable facts should be accepted.  Wikipedia is an area for learning, not competition.  If you know you're not good enough, don't try.   Yet honestly, 90% of the population is capable if they want to be.  They just have to try harder than Star Trek!

> > Then again, loving bridges, he may not find it in is heart to delete
> > _any_ article about them that has sources. Which, to a certain extent,
> > is fine with me, but it does have the potential to significantly
> > change the whole "deletionism/inclusionism" balance. Imagine the same
> > concept applied to Star Trek experts. "Tribble Rebellion of 2280?
> > SPEEDY KEEP!"
>
> I don't see the problem? Wikipedia works because autonomous persons
> and communities can work on their areas of expertise without having to
> go layers of bureaucracy. Except for a few global rules; Wikipedia is
> an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not paper, it is those communities and
> their ability to work autonomously that is shaping Wikipedia. That
> work process scales very well and is the reason why Wikipedia contain
> millions of articles. Centralized processes (like AFD) does not scale
> very well at all. Therefore I think it makes sense to avoid
> centralized processes.
>
> The more decentralized, the less people involved, the more easy it is
> to form consensuses. So if there is a consensus among the group of
> Wikipedians working on Star Trek articles that "Tribble Rebellion of
> 2280" should be kept, then that is what should be done. I think it is
> perfectly clear that those who work in the topic area knows best what
> articles belong in it. The last thing THEY need is a centralized
> process involving clueless opinionated people interfering in their
> business.
>
> > Topical AfD is not a bad idea as long as these subcommunities are as
> > open as the general AfD, and the only process by which they
> > distinguish themselves is one of self-selection. That is, my opinion
> > on a topical AfD should not count less because I have not worked in
> > that topical AfD before.
>
> In theory yes. In practice, people are more likely to listen to
> someone who has credentials.
>
> --
> mvh Bj?rn
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] More Angry Admin Abuse

body:
---- freakofnurture <freakofnurture at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Sweetie, it looks like you're done for.  I wouldn't have said that bit about 4am and all...anyway, I don't get high, i am high all the time.  I'm epileptic and the meds I take make me higher than anything you've ever taken in your life.  But, after a lifetime of being high, believe me, it gets old!  Don't write to me telling me about getting high, I'm a counselor.  Have a good time recovering.  Hasta

> Interestingly, this is the same troll that registered "User:Let's Get High
> And Edit Wikipedia" (see also
> <http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-March/041218.html>). Get
> a life, stop creating sockpuppets, and take a shot at usefully contributing.
>
> --user:freakofnurture
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/More-Angry-Admin-Abuse-t1560623.html#a4239186
> Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] More Angry Admin Abuse

body:
---- Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 04/05/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> > On May 4, 2006, at 2:51 PM, Bacchante Maenad wrote:

> >Are you trying to tell me that Freakofnurture is an administrator?
I think He's a hacker.  He sent me an email about getting high and staying up until four am and dumping the edits.  Rob, are you sure he's an admin, or do you think this guy's just messing with our heads?  Somebody ought to find a contact somewhere on the cite and ask if this asshole is really part of their team.  (forgive my french.)  Let's all do it okay?  Send this email back through and we'll all find a phone number there within 48 hrs. and call!
-JTMH

> > > Hi,
> > >   I tried again to create a username and predictably the self
> > > described
> > > angry Wikipedia admin username, Freakofnurture, immediately blocked
> > > me from
> > > editing.  The name I choose was "Even Small Children Can Edit
> > > Wikipedia" and
> > > his explanation is "yep, and i'm keeping it safe for them".  It's
> > > curious
> > > how this person became an admin, being so angry, his consistent not
> > > assuming
> > > good faith and not being genuine in his communications.  It seems
> > > in the
> > > wikipedia user-space there is plenty of room for anger and
> > > nastiness and not
> > > much for humor.
> >
> > I've got an idea. Stop registering inflammatory usernames and we'll
> > stop blocking them.
>
> For those who like their drama, select from the following responses:
>
> "Won't somebody please think of the children!?"
>
> "Oh my god, it's admin abuse! I am shocked to my very core."
>
> and
>
> "Where are we going, and what's with the handbasket?"
>
>
> Rob Church
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] We need to recognize that advocating is a basic right

body:
On 5/4/06, John Tex <johntexster at gmail.com> wrote:

> This is "advocacy".  Contacting people to recruit them to support you or to
> act according to beliefs you think they may already have should rightly be
> called "campaigning". This is a Good Thing.

You're on the wrong project, mate.


from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject: [Foundation-l] Free advertising on Wikipedia

body:
Hi. I was thinking a long time about this ... because on one hand
Wikipedia is neutral, so why should companies like Siemens and Crysler
have more right for an article than small start-ups? Who knows what this
start-up is going to be in some years?

Why not restrict information to: Company xyz is in abc and produces bla
bla bla ....

Leading then to a project like http://wikicompany.org?

I wish to point out that I am not associated with Wikicompany and that I
write this on a personal title - I only see his project as a very valid
one for the way it is being built. At least on such a project there
would be no problem of a company describing its services and inserting
links. Another advantage is that there would not be that "Logos are not
allowed"-problem with Commons - it is an outside project, a good and
free one. And in that way: no company gets a direct link on wikipedia,
but just one link to the outside project where their contents then of
course must comply with the rules there.

Well, this could solve the problem ...

My 2 cts.

Best,

Sabine
Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale!
 http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com


subject: [Foundation-l]The status of smaller languages on the Wikimedia	Commons

body:
----Message d'origine----
>Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 16:11:01 +0200
>De: GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
>
>Hoi,
>This seems to be yet another fine mess that the Commons crowd is
>getting itself into. The question is when will they learn that they
>are serving the other projects and that their good intentions have
>resulted in projects NOT adopting Commons because of the fiendly
>cooperation as it is perceived.
>
>What do they think they achieve by doing this? Is this in the interest
>of the projects? Is this the considered opinion of the Commons
>community or is it a solitary excercise? It is indeed a great way of
>creating more hostility.
>
>Thanks,
>    GerardM

I think one should be prudent on whether Wikimedia Commons is
or is not a "community". Personally I would consider Commons as
a confederacy of communities, rather than a single community. If
you consider Commons as a single community, you will hear only
the voice of the stronger ones, that is the English native speakers
and the Other-native-language+English-bilingual people. You will
quite never hear the voice of the strictly non bilingual non-English
speakers.

The person that made the changes  has done a lot of good jobs on
 Commons and has therefore an authoritative voice. The issue has
been discussed on the English speaking village pump of Commons.
 But should we consider the English speaking village pump of
Commons as an authoritative voice in a multilingual project, which
includes tiny minority languages, and also somewhat less tiny
minority languages yet less active and dynamic than the English
 speaking community (and represented there mostly by bilingual
people, non bilingual people being almost absent and
underrepresented if not unrepresented) ?

Or should we say that these languages communities are not
 included, but merely tolerated under restricting conditions in a
basically English-speaking Wikimedia Commons project ?


from_name: Uwe Brauer

subject: [Wikitech-l] Threads: any plans

body:
Hello

I asked sometime ago about the possibilities to add some Thread
functionality to the discussion pages and I was pointed out that there
exists
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:LiquidThreads.

However it seems to me not a very vivid project. Are there any other
plans to add such a functionality?

Thanks

Uwe Brauer


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Phoebe Ayers

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Fw: Wikipedia quality survey

body:
Sorry if this has gone out before... I got it from a librarians
mailing list. Interesting! What do you all think? It's like what
Nature did, only ad-hoc. There's no contact information for the
original survey developer, which is a little odd...

-- phoebe/brassratgirl

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carla Wilson Buss" <cbuss at UGA.EDU>
To: <UGAREF-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 5:26 AM
Subject: Fw: Wikipedia quality survey

> Hello LIBREFers!
> A Comp Sci colleague of mine has developed a survey to measure the quality
> of Wikipedia. Would you please take a moment to fill it out? It's short -
> 4
> minutes at most. Thanks for participating!
> Survey URL:
> http://express.perseus.com/perseus/surveys/1734848031/1e78143f.htm
>
> -- Caroline<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
> <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns =
> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />
> Caroline Bordinaro, MLIS
> Library Instruction and Information Literacy Coordinator
> University Library
> CSU Dominguez Hills
> cbordinaro at csudh.edu
> 310-243-2084
>
> Caroline Bordinaro
> tenorclef at netzero.net
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] add a start reply

body:
Hello

While signing a contribution in a discussion page makes it clear when
that contribution finishes it is *not* clear where it starts.

Usually it is recommended to use identation, however some users
sometimes use indentation in their editing in order to emphasise a
point. So could a here starts my contribution-tag be implemented?

One possibility could be

'''Re: [[User:Foo]]''' where [[User:Foo]] is the signature of user Foo.

I can do something like this with my editor, but it would be nice and
helpful to have it implemented.

Uwe Brauer


subject: [Commons-l] FlickrLickr hits 5K

body:
On 5/4/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:

> And to all those who still have slices to finish: I'm watching you! ;-)

Damn, I'm uncovered!

/me runs into hiding

Delphine

--
~notafish


from_name: Plyd

subject: [Wikitech-l] add a start reply

body:
on fr, a border (in css) has been added (I don't remember who did it) to
emphasize indentation.

> It is not always very clear, but it's a bit better.
>
> You can have a look to:
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
>
>
>
> On 5/4/06, Uwe Brauer <oub at mat.ucm.es > wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hello
> >
> > While signing a contribution in a discussion page makes it clear when
> > that contribution finishes it is *not* clear where it starts.
> >
> > Usually it is recommended to use identation, however some users
> > sometimes use indentation in their editing in order to emphasise a
> > point. So could a here starts my contribution-tag be implemented?
> >
> > One possibility could be
> >
> > '''Re: [[User:Foo]]''' where [[User:Foo]] is the signature of user Foo.
> >
> > I can do something like this with my editor, but it would be nice and
> > helpful to have it implemented.
> >
> >
> > Uwe Brauer
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
>
>


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [Wikitech-l] add a start reply

body:
A similar problem exists when one person raises a number of
objections, and another person replies to them all. The replier
frequently doesn't sign each point - or, if they do, it looks
pedantic. Try and solve that problem too :)

Steve

On 04/05/06, Uwe Brauer <oub at mat.ucm.es> wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> While signing a contribution in a discussion page makes it clear when
> that contribution finishes it is *not* clear where it starts.
>
> Usually it is recommended to use identation, however some users
> sometimes use indentation in their editing in order to emphasise a
> point. So could a here starts my contribution-tag be implemented?
>
> One possibility could be
>
> '''Re: [[User:Foo]]''' where [[User:Foo]] is the signature of user Foo.
>
> I can do something like this with my editor, but it would be nice and
> helpful to have it implemented.
>
>
> Uwe Brauer
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Bacchante Maenad

subject: [WikiEN-l] More Angry Admin Abuse

body:
Hi,
  I tried again to create a username and predictably the self described
angry Wikipedia admin username, Freakofnurture, immediately blocked me from
editing.  The name I choose was "Even Small Children Can Edit Wikipedia" and
his explanation is "yep, and i'm keeping it safe for them".  It's curious
how this person became an admin, being so angry, his consistent not assuming
good faith and not being genuine in his communications.  It seems in the
wikipedia user-space there is plenty of room for anger and nastiness and not
much for humor.

Bacchante


subject: [Wikitech-l] add a start reply

body:
>>>>> "Plyd" == Plyd
>>>>> <wiki.vincent at amplyd.com> writes:

   Plyd> on fr, a border (in css) has been added (I don't remember who
   Plyd> did it) to  emphasize indentation.

Thanks, but the problem with this is that if I use indentation myself
it would get that border as well which is very confusing!

Consider the following example:

In the main article the following is problematic:
: ''Fermat proved his theorem himself''
as we know this is incorrect, etc etc

You see I cite a text in the article and according to the CSS it would
get that border.

Uwe Brauer


subject: [Wikitech-l] Toolserver update?

body:
Hi all,
  Not trying to be a pain, but I recall reading that a solution to the
toolserver problem for EN being in the pipeline. Just wondering how
that's going...I seem to keep finding more and more tools that would
be great, if only they were up to date :)

Thanks,
Steve


from_name: Joe Anderson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
WP:CJ is an organisatino about civility.

On 5/4/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> geni wrote:
> > On 5/3/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> No, that would be citing a _primary_ source, which is entirely within
> >> the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Indeed, in many cases the
> game
> >> itself would probably be a lot easier to get ahold of for verification
> >> than old issues of game magazines that might discuss it.
> >>
> >
> > By that standard I could give you the instructions for doing various
> > chemical experiments (ones that don't appear in the lititure) as a
> > source.
> >
> Not at all. I use that standard and I would not consider your example to
> be a "primary source," so you're putting something else into the mix to
> reach that conclusion not present in my standard. Perhaps I'm not
> explaining it clearly or we have a basic difference in underlying
> philosophy.
>
> IMO the key difference between the two is that a computer game is a work
> of "literature" (in a broad sense) whereas a pile of chemicals is not.
> You "read" a game by playing it but you don't "read" a pile of chemicals
> by combining them in various predefined ways.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Joe Anderson

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


body:
I've seen this vote stacking.

On 5/4/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/4/06, Ben McIlwain <cydeweys at gmail.com> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > geni wrote:
> > > On 5/4/06, Rob <gamaliel8 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> I'd think this counts as a disruption of the normal workings of afd
> > >> and is blockable on those grounds.   Isn't this exactly why we were
> so
> > >> concerned about userboxes - to prevent this sort of thing from
> > >> happening?
> > >
> > > That would depend on which set of claims you belived.
> > >
> > > In any case it appears at least one of the people used a list compiled
> > > from past AFD votes.
> >
> > Well, specifically, a list of all of the people who had voted Delete in
> > the previous vote.  That user made no attempt to notify any of the Keep
> > voters.  It's this kind of selective voting recruitment (aka
> > vote-stacking) that is so harmful to Wikipedia.  When I canceled that
> > Afd it was leaning heavily towards Delete, but that was only because two
> > Delete vote-stackers had been out campaigning heavily and there was only
> > one Keep vote-stacker who had just begun operations.  The end result
> > would've just been another no consensus once both sides were "properly"
> > marshaled.
> >
>
> And the problem with that is?
>
> > The kind of actions I'm describing here are pretty clearly disruptive
> > and work against the policies we have in place for deciding issues.
> > It's extremely harmful.  Note that the ArbCom has already come out
> > against vote-stacking, in one form or another, in three separate
> instances:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IZAK
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Guanaco%2C_MarkSweep%2C_et_al
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jason_Gastrich
> >
>
> Arbcom can to a large degree do what it likes. Votestacking is hard to
> define. If I post a notice to the rational skecpticism wikiproject
> about a AFD of some alt med article is that vote stacking?
>
> > In the past many blocks have been issued to deal with these issues.  Yet
> > suddenly we're running into a lot of resistance from people who are
> > saying it isn't explicitly listed in policy.  Well, since policy is
> > simply a written-down version of what happens in practice, we need to
> > modify policy.  The only single diehard policy is "Wikipedia is an
> > encyclopedia",
>
> Wrong. NPOV is hard policy.
>
> > and it's pretty clear that these vote-stacking campaigns
> > I've been describing go against that ultimate goal of making the best
> > encyclopedia we can.
> >
>
> Nah not really. They tend to nullify themselves quite effectively.
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Joe Anderson

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


subject: [Wikitech-l] add a start reply

body:
On 04/05/06, Uwe Brauer <oub at mat.ucm.es> wrote:
> Thanks, but the problem with this is that if I use indentation myself
> it would get that border as well which is very confusing!
>
>
> Consider the following example:
>
> In the main article the following is problematic:
> : ''Fermat proved his theorem himself''
> as we know this is incorrect, etc etc
>
> You see I cite a text in the article and according to the CSS it would
> get that border.

The solution here is very obvious: a different syntax element is
needed for user replying, so the different semantics of the two cases
can be distinguished. The most obvious element would be >.

Text
>Reply 1
>>Reply 2
>>:"Fermat proved his theorem..."
>>>No he didn't

Steve


subject: [Wikitech-l] add a start reply

body:
>>>>> "Steve" == Steve Bennett
>>>>> <stevage at gmail.com> writes:

   Steve> A similar problem exists when one person raises a number of
   Steve> objections, and another person replies to them all. The replier
   Steve> frequently doesn't sign each point - or, if they do, it looks
   Steve> pedantic. Try and solve that problem too :)

   Steve> Steve

You mean

,----
| Author 1:
| The text is incorrect because
| #Fermat was a genius
| #Fermat knew already things he never published.
| ~~~~
`----

So you say there are people who are replying like this:

,----
| The text is incorrect because
| #Fermat was a genius
| :no he was insane
| #Fermat knew already things he never published.
| :Like what?
| ~~~~
`----
Instead of:

,----
| :what you say is obviously wrong, since
| :: no he was insane
| :: Like what
| ~~~~
`----

The first type of reply seems to me quite insane!

Uwe Brauer


body:
On 04/05/06, John Tex <johntexster at gmail.com> wrote:
> We need to recognize that each user has a right to try to influence policy

The discussion was about AfD votes. You talk about "influencing
policy". Do you include AfD votes as a special case of "influencing
policy", then?

Steve


subject: [Wikitech-l] add a start reply

body:
On 04/05/06, Uwe Brauer <oub at mat.ucm.es> wrote:
> >>>>> "Steve" == Steve Bennett
> >>>>> <stevage at gmail.com> writes:
>
>    Steve> A similar problem exists when one person raises a number of
>    Steve> objections, and another person replies to them all. The replier
>    Steve> frequently doesn't sign each point - or, if they do, it looks
>    Steve> pedantic. Try and solve that problem too :)
>
>    Steve> Steve
>
> You mean
>
> ,----
> | Author 1:
> | The text is incorrect because
> | #Fermat was a genius
> | #Fermat knew already things he never published.
> | ~~~~
> `----
>
> So you say there are people who are replying like this:
>
> ,----
> | The text is incorrect because
> | #Fermat was a genius
> | :no he was insane
> | #Fermat knew already things he never published.
> | :Like what?
> | ~~~~
> `----
> Instead of:
>
> ,----
> | :what you say is obviously wrong, since
> | :: no he was insane
> | :: Like what
> | ~~~~
> `----
>
> The first type of reply seems to me quite insane!

No, it's perfectly logical, and is very easy to read. The only problem
arises if there are replies to replies. Note that you *can* sign every
line:

| The text is incorrect because
| #Fermat was a genius
| :no he was insane ~~~~
| #Fermat knew already things he never published.
| :Like what? ~~~~
`----

Steve


subject: [Wikitech-l] add a start reply

body:
>>>>> "Steve" == Steve Bennett
>>>>> <stevage at gmail.com> writes:

   >>
   >> You see I cite a text in the article and according to the CSS it would
   >> get that border.

   Steve> The solution here is very obvious: a different syntax
   Steve> element is needed for user replying, so the different
   Steve> semantics of the two cases can be distinguished. The most
   Steve> obvious element would be >.

   Steve> Text
   >> Reply 1
   >>> Reply 2
   >>> :"Fermat proved his theorem..."
   >>>> No he didn't

I agree, the question is, could that be easily implemented in the CSS?


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 04/05/06, Gallagher Mark George
<m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>
> G'day Steve,
>
> > On 03/05/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > > As for "an article with no claim to notability", I actually have no
> > > idea what that phrase means.
> >
> > An article has to establish the notability of its subject. If it
> > doesn't do that, it's subject to speedy deletion.
> >
> > ...I recite.
>
> No, it has to *assert* the notability of its subject.  When clearing up
> CAT:CSD I see a lot of speedy taggings where the tagger simply
> figured "sure, there's an assertion of notability there, but I don't
> think it's good enough".  Wrong.

There is, of course, the fact that most people (myself included)
interpret it as "no assertion of plausible notability". "John Smith
was the first man to climb Everest in a week" is an assertion of
notability, and it's plausible. "John Smith was the first man to climb
Olympus Mons" is an assertion of implausible notability.

And "is the world's sexiest man" would seem a pretty good definition
of notability, but - strangely enough - we tend to ignore that the ten
thousand speedied articles saying this are asserting notability. :-)

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


from_name: Ben McIlwain

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

Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Ben McIlwain wrote:
>> Vote-stacking is wrong, it is harmful to Wikipedia, and it needs to be
>> discouraged and stopped.  The simple way to do this is to block users
>> who are doing this.  If it's not in the policy now, it should be.
>
> I am with you in spirit, but it seems quite difficult to define "vote
> stacking" in a way that won't be the source of endless horrible fights.

Can we at least get a policy on mass-spamming of user talk pages then?
I'm willing to put up with a mass-spammed Rfa thanks, as that isn't
trying to influence anything whatsoever, or Esperanza mailing lists or
whatever.  But a single user taking it upon themselves to identify a
specific group of people and notifying them selectively about a
consensus-seeking issue currently ongoing - that is wrong.

> I have been thinking lately about some radical solution to AfD woes.
> Here are some thoughts.
>
> 1. Consensus works when there are a small number of people who have
> reputations with each other who are willing to work for compromise and
> positive progress.  The importance of social capital in the process
> (earning it and spending it) can not be overemphasized.
>
> 2. As we get to be a larger community, consensus still works well on
> individual articles and areas of interest, because there are
> subcommunities in negotiation there who know each other.
>
> 3. Certain global processes, though, have turned quite bitter and sour,
> likely because it is increasingly hard to have a process of reputation
> and social capital when you have tons of people who don't know each other.

Indeed!  Consensus simply fails to work on certain global processes.
Luckily we have ArbCom to deal with user conduct issues, otherwise
trying to deal with some particular users would be unworkable.

> 4.  The solution to this may well be to attempt to move the "locus of
> control" for deletion decisions into subcommunities.

I like this.  I was actually musing about AfdCom on #wikipedia-en-admins
two days ago.  Basically it'd be a Committee of trusted people who would
decide on extremely contentious Afd situations.  The way we have it
right now, with dozens of people piling on from both sides, is
untenable.  The AfdCom members would be well-trusted Wikipedians who
have an excellent grasp of article inclusion policy.  You could even
have an "evidence gathering" phase where experts (like the
aforementioned bridge experts) have their say.  This would be much
better than the current situation which consists of a bunch of people
yelling at each other and no one in particular, trying in vain to get
their points made, when the vast majority of voters haven't really put
much thought into the issue at all.

As for the specifics of AfdCom, I think it should be small, lightweight,
and fast.  ArbCom is good for what it does, but we don't need a process
that takes weeks during which a bad article could stay in limbo.  My
version of AfdCom would be made of five members, any three of which can
close a matter on a given situation.  The AfdCom members would be
appointed, NOT elected.  I don't even want to think of how messy a
voting situation would be ... many, many votes would be based on
members' past decisions on specific subject area Afds rather than an
actual objective analysis of the merit of that person.

Most Afds would run as normal, but there would be a special application
process users could go through to bring an article to AfdCom.  First,
there would have to be a non-trivial number of people on both sides, and
then AfdCom would have to decide whether to accept or reject the case,
kind of like ArbCom.  This also very handily eliminates any
vote-stacking concerns.  Any issue going to AfdCom is going to be
decided on by a maximum of five people, and those people are not going
to be subject to recruitment :-D

> --------
>
> I have an example, based on a nice dinner conversation I had with Sam
> Wantman.  Sam knows a lot about bridges, and there is a subcommunity of
> people who know each other and work on bridge articles.  Super.  This is
> why our stuff on bridges is super excellent.
>
> If a bridge is listed on AfD, the result is of course likely to be a
> horrific mess.  People who don't know anything about bridges are likely
> to vote based on pre-existing battles going on there between
> inclusionists and deletionists.  If someone cares deeply about the
> issue, they can campaign for random other friends to come and vote.  The
> admins who go through and clean it up will find it very difficult to
> figure out what to do, having little idea of the reputations of the
> various parties, and therefore have no choice to follow the disastrously
> bad rule of "one user account, one vote" ... even though this includes
> the votes of trolls, newbies, sockpuppets, meatpuppets, idiots *and*
> people who know what they are talking about and should be the ones deciding.
>
> Wouldn't it be better in this case to say, you know what, we actually
> have bridge experts, people who know about bridges, and these people
> ought to be the ones deciding, not random people on AfD.
>
> So how should this work in practice?

See above :-D

- --
Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")

~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFEWnzDvCEYTv+mBWcRAoZkAJoC9PTBJJ+3d0bg2nnXt6xaWnkLqwCePXXf
hMThCuiAgSgLOaMLJcMfjKA=
=fGHq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----