from_name: SJ

body:
On 3/16/06, THD <theodoranian at gmail.com> wrote:
> Why hold Chinese meetup just 3 weeks after the 2006 Wikimania?
Because
> we assume that there will be someone attending 2006 wikimania, and we
> want that one to share what he heard and saw in Boston with local
> wikipedians in OUR OWN LANGUAGE. If considerate enough, you shall know
> that it's not easy for people from PRC to go to the United States.

Hello again,

This makes perfect sense.  I am not concerned that this will detract
from Wikimania in any way; I think it will strengthen it.  Having
these conferences around the same time, paying attention to one
another, will be a Good Thing.

Delphine writes:
> 1) I find it a bit sad having two conferences (or three, as is) so
close together. The idea of having a "worldwide conference" should not
be impeeded by other conferences around the world, because it:
> a) spreads the attendance
> b) spreads the sponsors
> c) spreads the speakers
> d) somehow defeats the whole point of having a world-wide conference
(why would I go to Boston or Frankfurt if there is a conference nearer
to me three weeks afterwards?)

I actually think this will work out fine.  We expect to have to limit
Wikimania attendance; and the sponsors and speakers for the different
events seem unlikely to overlap (aside from which, Wikimania proper is
a much larger event than the others).

As effeitsanders notes, a national event is very different from a
worldwide event; and those who are planning on travelling far to make
it to the international Wikimedia Conference will likely still come
and also gladly attend a local event close to home.  The idea of
holding these satellite events after the international one, so that
great ideas and initiatives can be reprised or passed on, sounds cool
and workable to me.

Cheers and all success,
   SJ


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject: [Foundation-l] "Chinese Wikimania 2006 to be held in Hong Kong"


list: wikitech-l

from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [Wikitech-l] Split tool? was Too much agglomeration

body:
On 3/16/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/16/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > A really dumb thing that would get some of the way there would just
> > add an element in the history with the comment "Split from [[Original
> > article]] revision [[permanent link]]". Then people could navigate
> > back to that and the chain would be unbroken. Much simpler than the
> > database having to be smart.
>
> Dunno about you, but I do that anyway. In fact I did this this week,
> splitting [[German grammar]] into [[German nouns]] etc. For the first
> edit summary of the new article, I add "split from [[German
> grammar]]". A link to the version of the parent article before the
> split would be nice, but can be determined by hand simply by comparing
> dates.
>
Right. But obviously making it hardcoded/automagic would mean that
such a summary would be genuinely meaningful in a gneral sense and
make it much more likely to be used; it would also make it easier for
further functionality to be built on -- such as something that lets
you split off a section, leaving only a summary of the contents.

I'm currently working on a tool to fix the referencing on a page, but
I'll put such features on my list...


list: foundation-l

from_name: Anthere

body:
KJ wrote:
> ????????????????????
>
> ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
>
> ??????????????2006???????????????????????????????--???????--???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
>
> ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
>
> ???????????????????????????????????
> http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:2006%E4%B8%AD%E6%96%87%E7%B6%AD%E5%9F%BA%E5%B9%B4%E6%9C%83
>
> ??????????????????????????????????????????????????
>
> PS:If you cann't read this latter very well.....that is one of the reasons
> why Chinese Wikipedians need a Chinese Wikipedian's Conference.
>
>
> --
> KaurJmeb(KJ)

KJ... Absolutely no one questions the fact chinese editors want a
conference :-) It is *good* that your community is now big enough and
united enough to do one.
Our only worries are that there might be a confusion of names between
conferences (this has been cleared up) and that three meetings are done
nearly at the same time.

At least in Europe, meetings are frequent, and I am sure will be more
and more frequent as time.
Most of these meetings are restricted to one language only. German
editors had several meetings (in german). Dutch editors had several
meetings (in dutch/english). French editors had several meetings as well
(in french)...
Of course, chinese editors *should* have meetings as well.

Also, you must absolutely believe we understand the language problem.
Many of those posting on this list are not primarily english speaking.
In the recent posters, Delphine, Yann, Jean-Christophe, Jean-Baptiste,
myself are French. Erik, Mathias are Germans. Gerard and Walter are
Dutch. Aphaia is Japanese. Shizao is Chinese. Some of us are good in
english. Others are not very good. And we all belong to communities
where many people do not speak english at all. French people generally
are *bad* in english. Those of us who can speak english can help bridge
between communities.

I hope you (and other chinese who speak english) will post here more
often. We need you and your input. Last year in Frankfurt, Theodorian
and others came and told us about the chinese community. You may do the
same. And I'll tell you about the french ;-)

ant


list: wikien-l

from_name: Kirill Lokshin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Help me!

body:
On 3/16/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/16/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> > I'd say this one is going to close as no consensus:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...For_Dummies_books
> >
> > So, friends, can you help me to find merit in this article?  To be
> > reconciled to the existence of what up to now I am unable to see as
> > anything other than an absurdity?  Or is Tony right, and AfD is
> > fatally borken?
> > Guy (JzG)
>
> Non issue. We leave Afd to have their fun that kill it like to copyvio
> it is. Takeing on the inclusionists head on will probably result in a
> dummies watch or something.

It may be utterly useless garbage, but how is it a copyvio?  I was
under the impression that non-creative lists of facts (of which I
think this is an example) weren't eligible for copyright.

Kirill Lokshin


from_name: Rob

subject: [WikiEN-l] Help me!

body:
Agreed, this is taking copyright paranoia too far.  There is no creative
content in this list, it's just a list of books put out by this publisher.

On 3/16/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> It may be utterly useless garbage, but how is it a copyvio?  I was
> under the impression that non-creative lists of facts (of which I
> think this is an example) weren't eligible for copyright.
>


from_name: Angela

body:
On 3/16/06, R. O. C <sdnyroc at gmail.com> wrote:
> what if using "wikimedia", for example. "chinese wikimedia conference"?

That seems a better solution than using "Wikimania" for more than one
conference. I expect the Trademark Committee would be happy to grant
the rights for the use of "Wikimedia" in that context, though soufron
et al would need to confirm that.

Angela.


subject: [Foundation-l] Special project committee open for business

body:
The Special Projects Committee is open for business.

The special projects committee (SPCom) has been created by the Board
along with other Wikimedia committees.

Its scope may be described as

1. Distribution of Wikimedia project's content (DVD, Printed,
mirrors...), with or without partners (Wikijunior grant, publishing company)

2 Coordination of Wikimedia projets and possible partner projects to
share and connect content (e.g. Internet Archive, runeberg, libraries,
dictionary data for Wiktionary, movies and images for commons,
geographical data......)

3 Coordination between other committees and researchers to analyse the
projects, in particular when technical or legal issues are involved
(e.g. logs, stats......)

4 Coordination of projects between outside agents and the Foundation for
technical or financial benefits of parties (e.g. feeds to mirror sites,
which pay the Foundation regularly for our materials, answers.com, yahoo
search)

5 Assistance to improve/finance/start a new project proposal
(wikiversity, wikidata...), with implication of outside parties or not

6 Evaluation and incubation of other projects, new concepts, new events,
and ideas, to be handled to other committees if considered interesting
(eg, a conference in arab country next year to event committee)

7 Assist the Foundation in the fulfilment of its philanthropic mission
of providing free knowledge to people everywhere.

The committee is currently composed of Jakob, Danny, Aurevilly, Oscar,
Cormac, Andrew Lih, Muriel, SJ and myself.

Along with this committee, subcommittees will be created as issues
arise. Two subcommittees are under creation, one will be dedicated to
Wikiversity and the other one to the MobiLed partnership also mentionned
today. We may be involved in some of the projects proposed by Gerard as
well, WiktionaryZ and InstantCommons.

You are invited to see more about the committee here :
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special_projects_committee

Input is welcome, as well as proposals.
Keeping in mind that we are still in the process of defining our
procedures so that the committee will run smoothly and effectively. So,
please, do not pressure us :-)

Greetings.

Anthere


from_name: Walter van Kalken

body:
>
>Delphine
>(who still hopes to see Chinese and Dutch in Boston :-( )
>
>--
>~notafish
>
Would love to come to Boston .... but no funds .... anyone wants to
sponsor me, last year I was to white to get a sponsorship? Wikimania
reloaded in nl: seems planned about a week before I come to nl: for my
brothers marriage. So I requested the date be moved. I hope so.

a question to the Chinese .... would non Chinese be welcome? As Hong
Kong is a lot more doable for me. Cheap trips from BKK!

Walter/Waerth


from_name: Adrian Buehlmann

subject: [Wikitech-l] what happens to cvs-access?

body:
"Brion Vibber" wrote:
>
>So if we do switch, I'm more inclined to set up our own server than to use
>SourceForge's SVN.

If you are setting up your own server (which would be certainly the best thing to do),
you might want to have a look at www.perforce.com. It is commercial, closed source,
but they provide free licenses for open source projects (unlimited access for read only).
They'd probably love to give you free support on top of that if they could say you
use it for Wikimedia.

Sorry for that ad. But I'm a fan of it (successful user). It's better than SVN.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Help me!

body:
On 3/16/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/17/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/16/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 3/16/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> > > > I'd say this one is going to close as no consensus:
> > > >
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...For_Dummies_books
> > > >
> > > > So, friends, can you help me to find merit in this article?  To be
> > > > reconciled to the existence of what up to now I am unable to see as
> > > > anything other than an absurdity?  Or is Tony right, and AfD is
> > > > fatally borken?
> > > > Guy (JzG)
> > >
> > > Non issue. We leave Afd to have their fun that kill it like to copyvio
> > > it is. Takeing on the inclusionists head on will probably result in a
> > > dummies watch or something.
> >
> > It may be utterly useless garbage, but how is it a copyvio?  I was
> > under the impression that non-creative lists of facts (of which I
> > think this is an example) weren't eligible for copyright.
> >
> > Kirill Lokshin
>
> It is sorted. For example sorting the books into a "Handheld
> computing" section is argubly creative.

Well, it is prefaced with "Note that this list contains some
duplicates; some books are part of multiple ...For Dummies series."
I'm not terribly familiar with these books; do they have something,
like a spine label, giving the series?  If that's the case, listing it
by these isn't particularly creative on our part.

Kirill Lokshin


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright on Wikisource

body:
On 3/15/06, Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> I'd much rather see
> "Wikimedia celebrity hunts" organized, as long as we make it clear that
> we're talking about taking photos. ;-)

Does Daniel Brandt count as a celebrity?

--
Sam, who's going on a bear hunt


subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright on Wikisource


body:
On 3/16/06, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> In the beginning there were Logos,

And the Logos were with Jimbo and the Logos were Jimbo?

--
Sam


from_name: Jonathan

subject: [WikiEN-l] Primary sources

body:
Hello,

If someone uses a primary source, should the context be quoted directly?
If it is not, would that constitute original research? Another words, if
someone takes the primary source and interprets it to his or her own
need, it does seem like a re-creation of a primary source. It's like
original research in an attempt to make the primary source a secondary
source.

I've seen this kind of discussion before. The result was that all
scholarly work is always based on secondary scholastic sources. That
does not give an answer to the primary sources as above, but it does
shed some insight into non-scholarly source creep.

Feedback is appreciated.

Jonathan


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Database redundancy

body:
On 3/16/06, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> How about PostGreSQL?

Working on porting Wikipedia to PostgreSQL is a good way to get hired
working for MySQL AB. Seems so far the only group thats been immune to
it are the folks at http://pgfoundry.org/projects/wikipedia

As far as your question goes, PG is still stuck with master/slave
replication as well..  True multimaster was accomplished in Postres-R
as a proof of concept, but hasn't been synced up and made part of the
official code yet. Someday.

For the queryload that Wikipedia creates, MySQL runs fine... although,
for adhoc queries PG wipes the floor (no bitmap joins in mysql
@#$@#$). Also, if you import Wikipedia into PG it's much smaller than
MySQL even with gzip disabled because PG gzips on the back end and
doesn't insert airspace in the tables (if you want your tables
physically clustered on some field, you have to configure that
explicitly, it's nor forced like w/ inno and primary keys). Also,
since PG has proper UTF-8 support you don't need to use blobs... thus
it's easy to throw in full text indexes and perform (index
accelerated) queries on article text.

Related to this I've mostly given up on using toolserver for analysis
stuff... between the current unavailability of article text, the
unresponsiveness of the folks operating it, and the poor performance
of MySQL with complex queries... .. Being forced to choose between
working with old data that I can query flexibly and painlessly and
working with fresh data that is painful to query.. :(


from_name: THD

body:
Hello, All,

It's me again.

Why hold Chinese meetup just 3 weeks after the 2006 Wikimania? Because
we assume that there will be someone attending 2006 wikimania, and we
want that one to share what he heard and saw in Boston with local
wikipedians in OUR OWN LANGUAGE. If considerate enough, you shall know
that it's not easy for people from PRC to go to the United States.
Even in Hong Kong, I am worried about there would be some people can't
come to join for visa and financial issues. And, please don't think
it's easy to talk, to write, to share in a totally different language.

Chinese wikipedia community is still young and small. Chinese
wikipedians are seperated by historic and political factors. Taking me
as an example, in the past, I couldn't imagine I can join a project
and work together with people from the "Hostile the Other side of the
Strait". Then, we argued and had many conflicts in the Chinese
Wikipedia. And now, we are trying to see each other to make friends,
to share the knowledge of interllectual property rights, the new
discoveries of wiki technologies, and to exchange opinions of managing
and promoting the wikipedia and all the projects which Wikimedia
foundation hosts, in our conservative society and even in an
environment where PRC government banned Wikipedia.

I admit the importance to work together. But I don't think we should
do the same thing together all the time. After the wikimania in
Boston, it's time to spread to strenthen the power of Wikimedia.

Sincerely,

Theodoranian

2006/3/16, Delphine M?nard <notafishz at gmail.com>:
> A few random thoughts about this.
>
> I am extremely happy that the Asian continents, and the Chinese
> particularly, are working on such a project.
>
> As a matter of fact, I believe that local "Wikimanias" or local
> "Wikimedia conferences" should be held on a very regular basis, in
> order to strengthen the community around the world and regionally.
>
> I have been thinking about these extensively thanks to Effeitsanders
> who has launched the idea of the "Wikimania reloaded" (working name)
> in the Netherlands and has many times asked for my input, which I
> scarcely gave (I didn't know what to say). So here are my thoughts
> about the whole idea, now that I have thought about it.
>
> I believe regional conferences should be planned with the Foundation
> for many reasons:
> 1) I find it a bit sad having two conferences (or three, as is) so
> close together. The idea of having a "worldwide conference" should not
> be impeeded by other conferences around the world, because it:
> a) spreads the attendance
> b) spreads the sponsors
> c) spreads the speakers
> d) somehow defeats the whole point of having a world-wide conference
> (why would I go to Boston or Frankfurt if there is a conference nearer
> to me three weeks afterwards?)
> And anyway, it is using the trademarks, so the Foundation should have
> an input in it, especially where local chapters are not present, so as
> to make sure that the name and spirit is used in the right way (not to
> mention the logos ;-) )
>
> In the end, I believe working together allows synergy. Working each in
> our own little corner thins out the efforts. I urge the organizers of
> the Chinese conference to get in touch with the Board to explain what
> they want to do and how, so that we can coordinate all of this.
>
> 2) I am more in favour of an "Olympic Games" type thing, where we'd
> have say Wikimania as an annual worldwide wikimedia conference once
> every 4 years (or 2, or 6, I don't know) and then in the years in
> between as many local conferences as there are people ready to
> organize them.
>
> That's for the grand scheme.
>
> On the more specific matter of trademark and logo use for the Chinese
> Conference:
>
> 1) Why use the Wikipedia logo if it is a Wikimedia conference?
> 2) I've changed the licence on the poster to a dual licence
> {{copyrightbyWikimedia]] for the logo and CC-BY-SA for the design.
>
> Best,
>
> Delphine
> (who still hopes to see Chinese and Dutch in Boston :-( )
>
> --
> ~notafish
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: KJ

body:
????????????????????

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

??????????????2006???????????????????????????????--???????--???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

???????????????????????????????????
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:2006%E4%B8%AD%E6%96%87%E7%B6%AD%E5%9F%BA%E5%B9%B4%E6%9C%83

??????????????????????????????????????????????????

PS:If you cann't read this latter very well.....that is one of the reasons
why Chinese Wikipedians need a Chinese Wikipedian's Conference.

--
KaurJmeb(KJ)
???????http://zh.wikipedia.org
KJ???????????http://www.wretch.cc/blog/kaurjmeb
???????~


body:
Hi Andrew,

Thanks for the observations (hmm, a wiki annual meeting... we
shouldn't forget that for most people, 'wiki' means Wikipedia).  Good
luck with your move!

--SJ

PS -  Jakob: you're right about the magic of interwiki links...

On 3/16/06, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I apologize for not being able to jump in earlier to bridge the gap
> between ZH users and the rest, since I've been done much of that in
> the past. (I'm in the process of moving up to Beijing, so I've not
> even been neglecting the mailing lists.)
>
> Here's some observations:
>
> - Hong Kong is an ideal location for the conference for now, since
> it's accessible from Taiwan, PRC, Malaysia and Singapore, and there is
> complete freedom of speech here.
> - The name, if translated literally, for "?????S??????" (zhong wen wei ji
> nian hui) means "Chinese (language) Wiki Annual Meeting"
> - I agree it's better not to use "Wikimania," as it's confusing
> internally, and even moreso to outsiders. It's not Wikimania East or
> Wikimania equivalent for the other side of the world. I would suggest
> Chinese Wikimedia Conference or something of the like.
> - Apologies again to many Taiwan, HK and PRC users who have contacted
> me in the last few weeks for planning help, but have not had the time
> to do so. After March 20, I will have more time to lend a hand.
>
> -Andrew
>
> On 3/17/06, Jakob Voss <jakob.voss at nichtich.de> wrote:
> > R.O.C wrote:
> >
> > > 6.3) i hope that the community can help choosing an english translation for
> > > the chinese name of conference, in accordance with foundation policies. the
> > > chinese community/conference would like to seek the authorization for using
> > > names/trademarks of the foundation, if needed. the name of the chinese
> > > conference is "???????S????" (literally, "chinese language wikipedia/wikimedia
> > > annual conference").
> >
> > Is it
> >
> >     chinese language wikipedia annual conference
> > or chinese language wikimedia annual conference
> > or chinese language wiki annual conference ?
> >
> > I don't know any Chinese but reading the interwikilinks there is:
> >
> > Wiki: ?S??
> > Wikipedia: ????????
> > Wikimedia: ?S?????w
> > Wikimania: ?S?????w???H????
> >
> > IMHO you can create any names you want in Chinese - there is only a
> > problem with the English translation:
> >
> > ?S?????? is not "Wikimania" but just call it
> >
> > "Chinese Wikipedia Conference" or "Chinese Wikimedia Conference".
> >
> > > 6.3.1) i personally prefer the name "chinese wikimedia conference" and would
> > > like to know the procedures for seeking permissions from the foundation
> > > regarding the use of "wikimedia". there is no local chapters serving chinese
> > > projects at the moment (may not be any time soon either).
> >
> > Since there is no local Wikimedia chapter you better call it "Chinese
> > Wikipedia Conference" because it's probably mostly about Wikipedia and
> > you will have less problems with the name. "Wikimedia" sounds too
> > official and will keep this discussion going on.
> >
> > > 6.4) as explained earlier, the english (or western) word of "wikimania" had
> > > been interpreted and understood in chinese differently as it is supposed to
> > > be. the organizers and chinese users have been informed at zh.wikipedia that
> > > wikimania does not mean "wikimedia conference", but "international wikimedia
> > > conference" (sponsored by wikimedia foundation); it is also a trading name
> > > of wikimedia foundation instead of a generic term.
> >
> > Wikimania is a special conference organised by the Wikimedia Foundation.
> > ?S?????? is not organised by the Wikimedia Foundation. So ?S?????? is
> > not Wikimania.
> >
> > Proof (Reductio ad absurdum / ???C??)
> >
> > 1. Assume ?S?????? is Wikimania
> > 2. Then ?S?????? is organised by the Wikimedia Foundation
> > 3. But ?S?????? is not organised by the Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > I must admit that maybe this logic argument only works in western
> > philosophy ;-)
> >
> > > hope that this is helpful.
> >
> > Thanks a lot! Your language and thinking is very intersting but not easy
> > to understand from the european point of view :-)
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Jakob
> >
> > P.S: Wikipedia is so great! You can write mails with Chinese just using
> > interwiki links :-)
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>

--
++SJ


subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright on Wikisource

body:
On 3/16/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/15/06, Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> > I'd much rather see
> > "Wikimedia celebrity hunts" organized, as long as we make it clear that
> > we're talking about taking photos. ;-)
>
> Does Daniel Brandt count as a celebrity?
>
> --
> Sam, who's going on a bear hunt

A frightening thought.

++SJ


subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright on Wikisource


body:
On 3/16/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/16/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/16/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > A really dumb thing that would get some of the way there would just
> > > add an element in the history with the comment "Split from [[Original
> > > article]] revision [[permanent link]]". Then people could navigate
> > > back to that and the chain would be unbroken. Much simpler than the
> > > database having to be smart.
> >
> > Dunno about you, but I do that anyway. In fact I did this this week,
> > splitting [[German grammar]] into [[German nouns]] etc. For the first
> > edit summary of the new article, I add "split from [[German
> > grammar]]". A link to the version of the parent article before the
> > split would be nice, but can be determined by hand simply by comparing
> > dates.
> >
> Right. But obviously making it hardcoded/automagic would mean that
> such a summary would be genuinely meaningful in a gneral sense and
> make it much more likely to be used; it would also make it easier for
> further functionality to be built on -- such as something that lets
> you split off a section, leaving only a summary of the contents.

This would be neat.  A 'proper' way to split out a section, or to
merge pages, or to extensively quote/excerpt one article in another,
that does the 'right thing' wrt edit history as best that can be done
atm.  I don't know that the issue of copying and pasting content from
one article to another within a wiki has ever been fully addressed.

> I'm currently working on a tool to fix the referencing on a page, but
> I'll put such features on my list...

What do you mean by 'fix referencing'  ?

SJ


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Help me!

body:
I'd say this one is going to close as no consensus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...For_Dummies_books

So, friends, can you help me to find merit in this article?  To be
reconciled to the existence of what up to now I am unable to see as
anything other than an absurdity?  Or is Tony right, and AfD is
fatally borken?
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


body:
thank you very much for those friendly and supportive messages. it is great
to learn about WCN, which i think has similar goals as the chinese
conference. i think that these events are helpful, constructive, and
beneficial, and i believe that all the three conferences will be blessed.

regarding the chinese name, i see a similar case here in which "????" might
have been misunderstood. "????" is not and shall not be called "wikimania".
to put long explanations/reasons about the two languages short, here is the
cheat sheet:

"wikimania" = "????????" (literally, "wikimedia international conference")
or if it'll be held annually "????????" (literally, "wikimedia international
annual conference")

"wiki" = "??" (similar pronunciation with "??", literally "order and
organized by (working) together") or "??"

"??" functions as an adjective or defining noun, meaning any project
sponsored by wikimedia foundation, it is also used informally as a short
form of "????" (wikipedia) or "??????" (chinese wikipedia). several chinese
users have warned that "??" need to be treated as a trading name for
projects of wikimedia, and "wiki" should not be translated as "??" (use "??"
instead). the interwiki link in en.wikipedia seems misplaced.

"wikimedia" = "????"

"wikipedia" = "????"

that being said, the "??" in the name of chinese conference "??????" means
both wikipedia and wikimedia.

the reason why "chinese wikipedia conference" or "chinese wikipedian
conference" is disfavored is that, there are chinese projects on wikisource,
wikibooks, wikiquotes, wikitionary, wikispecies, and the recently opened
(yeah~~) wikinews. the conference will not limit topics on chinese
wikipedia, and contributors of the other projects are anticipated at the
conference, so they should be respected.

roc
--

2006/3/16, SJ < 2.718281828 at gmail.com>:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Thanks for the observations (hmm, a wiki annual meeting... we
> shouldn't forget that for most people, 'wiki' means Wikipedia).  Good
> luck with your move!
>
> --SJ
>
> PS -  Jakob: you're right about the magic of interwiki links...
>
>
> On 3/16/06, Andrew Lih < andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I apologize for not being able to jump in earlier to bridge the gap
> > between ZH users and the rest, since I've been done much of that in
> > the past. (I'm in the process of moving up to Beijing, so I've not
> > even been neglecting the mailing lists.)
> >
> > Here's some observations:
> >
> > - Hong Kong is an ideal location for the conference for now, since
> > it's accessible from Taiwan, PRC, Malaysia and Singapore, and there is
> > complete freedom of speech here.
> > - The name, if translated literally, for "??????" (zhong wen wei ji
> > nian hui) means "Chinese (language) Wiki Annual Meeting"
> > - I agree it's better not to use "Wikimania," as it's confusing
> > internally, and even moreso to outsiders. It's not Wikimania East or
> > Wikimania equivalent for the other side of the world. I would suggest
> > Chinese Wikimedia Conference or something of the like.
> > - Apologies again to many Taiwan, HK and PRC users who have contacted
> > me in the last few weeks for planning help, but have not had the time
> > to do so. After March 20, I will have more time to lend a hand.
> >
> > -Andrew
> >
> > On 3/17/06, Jakob Voss <jakob.voss at nichtich.de> wrote:
> > > R.O.C wrote:
> > >
> > > > 6.3) i hope that the community can help choosing an english
> translation for
> > > > the chinese name of conference, in accordance with foundation
> policies. the
> > > > chinese community/conference would like to seek the authorization
> for using
> > > > names/trademarks of the foundation, if needed. the name of the
> chinese
> > > > conference is "??????" (literally, "chinese language
> wikipedia/wikimedia
> > > > annual conference").
> > >
> > > Is it
> > >
> > >     chinese language wikipedia annual conference
> > > or chinese language wikimedia annual conference
> > > or chinese language wiki annual conference ?
> > >
> > > I don't know any Chinese but reading the interwikilinks there is:
> > >
> > > Wiki: ??
> > > Wikipedia: ????
> > > Wikimedia: ????
> > > Wikimania: ????????
> > >
> > > IMHO you can create any names you want in Chinese - there is only a
> > > problem with the English translation:
> > >
> > > ???? is not "Wikimania" but just call it
> > >
> > > "Chinese Wikipedia Conference" or "Chinese Wikimedia Conference".
> > >
> > > > 6.3.1) i personally prefer the name "chinese wikimedia conference"
> and would
> > > > like to know the procedures for seeking permissions from the
> foundation
> > > > regarding the use of "wikimedia". there is no local chapters serving
> chinese
> > > > projects at the moment (may not be any time soon either).
> > >
> > > Since there is no local Wikimedia chapter you better call it "Chinese
> > > Wikipedia Conference" because it's probably mostly about Wikipedia and
>
> > > you will have less problems with the name. "Wikimedia" sounds too
> > > official and will keep this discussion going on.
> > >
> > > > 6.4) as explained earlier, the english (or western) word of
> "wikimania" had
> > > > been interpreted and understood in chinese differently as it is
> supposed to
> > > > be. the organizers and chinese users have been informed at
> zh.wikipedia that
> > > > wikimania does not mean "wikimedia conference", but "international
> wikimedia
> > > > conference" (sponsored by wikimedia foundation); it is also a
> trading name
> > > > of wikimedia foundation instead of a generic term.
> > >
> > > Wikimania is a special conference organised by the Wikimedia
> Foundation.
> > > ???? is not organised by the Wikimedia Foundation. So ???? is
> > > not Wikimania.
> > >
> > > Proof (Reductio ad absurdum / ???)
> > >
> > > 1. Assume ???? is Wikimania
> > > 2. Then ???? is organised by the Wikimedia Foundation
> > > 3. But ???? is not organised by the Wikimedia Foundation
> > >
> > > I must admit that maybe this logic argument only works in western
> > > philosophy ;-)
> > >
> > > > hope that this is helpful.
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot! Your language and thinking is very intersting but not
> easy
> > > to understand from the european point of view :-)
> > >
> > > Greetings,
> > > Jakob
> > >
> > > P.S: Wikipedia is so great! You can write mails with Chinese just
> using
> > > interwiki links :-)
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> ++SJ
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>


list: wiktionary-l

from_name: GerardM

subject: [Wiktionary-l] WiktionaryZ update

body:
Hoi,
At the moment we are preparing for the moment where WiktionaryZ
becomes editable. Technically a lot of work is done and has been done
on the Wikidata end to make this happen. For those people who are
interested in it, a tarbal with the latest software and data is
available at http://epov.org/wd-gemet.tgz It comes with the basic
information you need to start writing your own scripts for when you
want to import your own data.

When WZ becomes editable we will be in a pre-alpha stage. We are
looking for people who are willing to help us test and build the
environment. We will start with a truly limited group of people and we
will slowly increase its size.

When you are interested, we want you to create a user and provide us
with your Babel information .. only language info ! We are working on
standardising the templates, Gangleri has done a lot of work to make
sure that languages like Farsi are readable in the templates.

We have started with the basic infrastructure to allow for Portals for
each language. The idea is to have information about a language on the
Portal in that language. At this moment we start the page by showing
what the templates for that language look like. We invite everyone to
check the text of the templates. It should be a good text in that
language.

The levels of proficiency are from 1 to 5 . We assume that there is no
point in informing the world that you have no knowledge of each
language. So we do not have a level 0. When people inform us that they
are professionally using a language, it will be appreciated to be
informed on the user page what the profession is.

When the software allows for edits and additions, the first content
that we are interested in is to have the swadesh list for all
languages. This will be an interesting project because this has to be
done with the concepts of WiktionaryZ in mind. The swadesh list as
published is a list of expressions, this means that we should allow
for all expressions and their DefinedMeaning for all languages.. The
point of this exercise is that people will have to work together.
Because of the multilingual nature of this project it will prove
interesting to see how well we manage.

Thanks,
    GerardM


from_name: Samuel Klein

subject: [Foundation-l] FW: PRESS RELEASE: EPA Closing Its Midwest Library

body:
The copyright status of the research involved isn't completely clear to
me, but this seems the kind of information that is theoretically, but not
practically, free.  I'm not sure who currently advocates for fixes to
these access problems; but it seems like something Wikimedia might want
to do.

"...the agency has allocated no money for moving collections to other
  libraries or digitizing the holdings so that they would be available
  online."

SJ

---------- Forwarded message ----------
For Immediate Release:  Thursday, March 16, 2006
Contact:   Chas Offutt (202) 265-7337

EPA Closing Its Midwest Library

Holding Will Be Stored Indefinitely; Public Access to Research
Compromised

Washington, DC - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is closing its
Midwest Regional Library serving universities, the public and its own
staff in a six-state area, according to an internal email released today
by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).  The agency
is acting without waiting for Congress to approve the proposed budget
cuts that are the basis for dismantling EPA's entire library network.

In a March 13, 2006 memo to employees, EPA Midwestern Regional
Administrator Thomas Skinner wrote that "the library will close in the
near future" so as "to allow time for an orderly relocation of our
library collection."  The affected library located in the Chicago
regional headquarters serves the six-state region of Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin.

The memo cites a 90% loss of funding for the regional library in
President Bush's proposed 2007 budget as the reason for closing the
library, even though the proposal has yet to be voted on by Congress and
the new federal fiscal year does not begin until October 1, 2006.  The
Midwest Regional Library is one of 27 libraries across the country whose
budget the administration has proposed to reduce by 80%.

"By putting its research collections into indefinite storage, EPA might
as well start burning books because these works are not likely to see
the light of day again," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch,
noting that the agency has allocated no money for moving collections to
other libraries or digitizing the holdings so that they would be
available online. "The loss of access to this research will remove
potentially key information from the hands of researchers, inspectors
and decision-makers."

The plan to slash library funding is among the $300 million in EPA
budget cuts proposed by the Bush administration.  As originally
proposed, the plan would also have de-funded the electronic catalog
maintained by the EPA Headquarters library.  When it was pointed out
that eliminating the electronic catalog would make it impossible to find
any holding within the network, EPA announced last week that it would
restore the $500,000 reduction to its headquarters for the catalog.
Unfortunately, EPA indicated that it would compensate for this action by
spreading even deeper cuts cut among the other libraries.

In his email, Regional Administrator Skinner pledged that limited
electronic access to research will remain available to EPA's own staff
but it is unclear what happens to the tens of thousands of research
reports that are now only available as hard copies. At the same time,
employees in other EPA regions are reporting parallel scrambles to
cutback library services in anticipation of adoption of the agency's FY
2007 budget.

"EPA might want to wait for Congress to act before its shutters its
libraries," Ruch added, noting that EPA spends more than a half-billion
dollars a year on research and the total library network budget is only
$2.5 million.  "EPA's national research plan is supposed to build on
what we already know; but effectively deploying our existing knowledge
base will be increasingly difficult if decades of research are locked
away in storage."

###

Read the email announcing the library closure

http://www.peer.org/docs/epa/06_13_03_EPA_Library_email.pdf

Learn more about the Bush plan to close the EPA library network

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=643

--- You are currently subscribed to newslib as: sjklein at hcs.harvard.edu. To unsubscribe send a blank
email to leave-11411364-5547079E at listserv.unc.edu


from_name: effeietsanders-list

body:
Wow, what a lot of emails :)

Firstly I want to wish the Chinese a lot of succes with organizing their
conference, and I think it is a very good idea indeed. I myself came with an
idea for a wikimedia conference, then under the working name wikimania
reloaded, but now under the proposed name Wikimedia Conferentie Nederland,
WCN in the Netherlands. The main idea was that it should not be a conpetetor
of "Boston", but it should complete it. It should be a conference where
people could discuss the lectures of wikimania with eachother, but where
some lectures were repeated and even some new lectures maybe. In my original
idea it was about 50% discussiongroups and 50% lectures for probably just
one day (instead of Boston's three days?).
Because I am not orginizing it totally by myself, it wouldn't be very odd if
there come some changes in that idea though. It will indeed be in Dutch (at
least for the most part), primarily to the members of the Vereniging. (But
others will probably be welcome as well). I am very glad we have support
from Kennisnet, that already said that they want to be our main sponsor, and
will even help to set ip up.
I certainly hope that most ducth will, when they can afford it, go to both
conferences. The nice thing of NL is that we are reletively small, so
travellingcosts are not that high in NL itself. To Boston however we are
already soon speaking about ?500 just for travel. Count then the nightings,
eating, conference-costs and (for students at least) you'll pay a fortune.
So it just will not be possible for a l?t of people to go anyway. I guess
it's the same for china, danmark, poland, afrika, all over the world almost.
So it seems very logical to me that people start as well, beside not instead
of, their own conference. I would, if payable, prefer by far the boston
conference, and I think a lot of other people do as well. I think that most
people will try very hard to go to both national as international
conference.
Well, probably a lot of words, and little meaning. Just think it is the
language that is the problem here ;) And people, don't be afraight. People
really DO want to go to wikimania. Also when there is a national conf. It's
just something totally different!

Effeietsanders

ps: see for a (still very) short story about WCN:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WCN and http://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/WCN (in
dutch). Feedback is very welcome, please give it at the talkpage in the
dutch wikimedia-WCN-page or give me a mail.

2006/3/16, Patrick, Brad <bpatrick at fowlerwhite.com>:
>
> And it was good.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Sam Korn
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 4:30 PM
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] "Chinese Wikimania 2006 to be held in Hong
> Kong"
>
> On 3/16/06, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > In the beginning there were Logos,
>
> And the Logos were with Jimbo and the Logos were Jimbo?
>
> --
> Sam
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Disclaimer under IRS Circular 230: Unless expressly stated otherwise in
> this transmission, nothing contained in this message is intended or written
> to be used, nor may it be relied upon or used, (1) by any taxpayer for the
> purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the
> Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and/or (2) by any person to
> support the promotion or marketing of or to recommend any Federal tax
> transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed in this message.
>
> If you desire a formal opinion on a particular tax matter for the purpose
> of avoiding the imposition of any penalties, we will discuss the additional
> Treasury requirements that must be met and whether it is possible to meet
> those requirements under the circumstances, as well as the anticipated time
> and additional fees involved.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Confidentiality Disclaimer: This e-mail message and any attachments are
> private communication sent by a law firm, Fowler White Boggs Banker P.A.,
> and may contain confidential, legally privileged information meant solely
> for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this
> communication is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately
> by replying to this message, then delete the e-mail and any attachments from
> your system. Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [WikiEN-l] Retrieving article deleted for NN

body:
On 3/16/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think in this case it might be worth creating a University of
> Melbourne Clubs and Societies article, because I could mount a genuine
> case that the C&S at U of M actually *are* notable as a group.

Absolutely, this was suggested a while ago on the talk page, IIRC, but
noone has gotten around to it yet. We totally need coverage of More
Beer!

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: geni

body:
On 3/16/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:

> This sounds pretty much like the British model.  I've no idea what
> other countries do, but the rule I learned is: if it involves wine and
> cheese, it's Faculty; if it involves beer and the kind of girls who
> don't stand around eating cheese, it's Union.

I don't know my union nearly started a cheese socirety
--
geni


body:
On 3/16/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> And if he's not planning to repost to begin with and just wants a copy
> for personal use, I don't see problem anyway.

Except on the Dutch wiki, there you can repost as much as you like :)

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Help me!

body:
On 3/16/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> I'd say this one is going to close as no consensus:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...For_Dummies_books
>
> So, friends, can you help me to find merit in this article?  To be
> reconciled to the existence of what up to now I am unable to see as
> anything other than an absurdity?  Or is Tony right, and AfD is
> fatally borken?
> Guy (JzG)

Non issue. We leave Afd to have their fun that kill it like to copyvio
it is. Takeing on the inclusionists head on will probably result in a
dummies watch or something.

--
geni


from_name: Heinz

subject: [Wikitech-l] export Spezial:Allmessages to language.php

body:
Rob Church schrieb:
> 1. Special:Allmessages
> 2. Click "PHP" view
>
> This produces the PHP for the messages file (1.6) or languages file
> (1.5) which can be pasted in.
>
>
> Rob Church
>
> On 16/03/06, Heinz <h-j.luecking at t-online.de> wrote:
>> Does there exist out there a solution for an export of
>> "Spezial:Allmessages" to a language.php file?
>>
>> thx-Heinz
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
thx. heinz

tomatos on eyes ;-)


subject: [Wikitech-l] Using (my own) wiki within an IFRame

body:
because of migrating to an other domain i would like to know how it is
possible to use the visible content of the new domain within the old
domain. i tested IFrames, but they dont work for mediawiki-enviroments.

any hints?

thx, heinz


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-03-17

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

Running test BUG 361: URL within URL, not bracketed... FAILED!
Running test External links: invalid character... FAILED!
Running test Bug 2702: Mismatched <i> and <a> tags are invalid... FAILED!
Running test A table with no data.... FAILED!
Running test A table with nothing but a caption... FAILED!
Running test Link containing "#<" and "#>" % as a hex sequences... FAILED!
Running test Template with thumb image (wiht link in description)... FAILED!
Running test Link to image page... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A ISBN with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A <math> with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 561: {{/Subpage}}... FAILED!
Running test Simple category... FAILED!
Running test Basic section headings... FAILED!
Running test Section headings with TOC... FAILED!
Running test Handling of sections up to level 6 and beyond... FAILED!
Running test Resolving duplicate section names... FAILED!
Running test Template with sections, __NOTOC__... FAILED!
Running test Link inside a section heading... FAILED!
Running test Media link with nasty text... FAILED!
Running test Bug 2095: link with pipe and three closing brackets... FAILED!
Running test Parser hook: static parser hook inside a comment... FAILED!
Running test Sanitizer: Validating the contents of the id attribute (bug 4515)... FAILED!

Passed 275 of 297 tests (92.59%) FAILED!


from_name: Aphaia

body:
Congrats for Chinewe Wikimedian meeting, you rock
I hope it gets another adjective soon, for instance, annual ... as for
Chinese name, it looks to me (a Japanese speaker who knows hanji a
bit) quite nice and not confusable with Wikimania.

Please let me make clear one point; all participants and programs are
now planned in Chinese? The reason why I'm interested in that is,  I
suppose, if there is one track in English (pardonnez vous cheres
francophones, mais c'est un seul example ...) or any other language,
neighbor countries' Wikipedians, like Korea or Japan, will be also
stimulated to attend, though already there are some bunch of people
who are capable in Chinese :-)

Cheers,

--
Aphaea@*.wikipedia.org
email: Aphaia @ gmail (dot) com


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikiwork Brigade

body: New project: [[Wikipedia:Wikiwork Brigade]]


from_name: Jama Poulsen

body:
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 12:09:04AM +0100, Heinz wrote:
> because of migrating to an other domain i would like to know how it is
> possible to use the visible content of the new domain within the old
> domain. i tested IFrames, but they dont work for mediawiki-enviroments.
>
> any hints?

I use a small iframe extension for including a blog on the Wiki.

See: http://wikicompany.org/wiki/Wikicompany:Iframe_extension
Example: http://wikicompany.org/wiki/Wikicompany:Blog

Jama Poulsen


from_name: Mak

subject: [WikiEN-l] Primary sources

body:
I've been struggling with this a bit myself. I have to disagree with
MacGyver, I think primary sources definitely play a role in good
encyclopedic writing. For instance, the use of quotes from a published play
could easily be useful in an article about that play. In this case the
primary source would be easily verifiable and useful, so it's complex.

I try to only use primary sources to back up opinions found in secondary
sources. Don't use a bunch of primary sources to come to a conclusion which
is not supported in your secondary sources, since this definitely becomes
original research. An example of where I've tried to do this is in [[Hymn to
St. Cecilia]], where I quote from /published/ primary source material to
support views expressed in other secondary sources.
Makemi

On 3/17/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Primary sources are hard if not impossible to verify. Don't use them.
>
> Mgm
>
> On 3/17/06, Jonathan <dzonatas at dzonux.net> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > If someone uses a primary source, should the context be quoted directly?
> > If it is not, would that constitute original research? Another words, if
> > someone takes the primary source and interprets it to his or her own
> > need, it does seem like a re-creation of a primary source. It's like
> > original research in an attempt to make the primary source a secondary
> > source.
> >
> > I've seen this kind of discussion before. The result was that all
> > scholarly work is always based on secondary scholastic sources. That
> > does not give an answer to the primary sources as above, but it does
> > shed some insight into non-scholarly source creep.
> >
> > Feedback is appreciated.
> >
> > Jonathan
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Primary sources

body:
Oh, and yes, if you interpret the meaning of that primary source by
paraphrasing, it probably becomes original research.
Makemi

On 3/17/06, Mak <makwik at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've been struggling with this a bit myself. I have to disagree with
> MacGyver, I think primary sources definitely play a role in good
> encyclopedic writing. For instance, the use of quotes from a published play
> could easily be useful in an article about that play. In this case the
> primary source would be easily verifiable and useful, so it's complex.
>
> I try to only use primary sources to back up opinions found in secondary
> sources. Don't use a bunch of primary sources to come to a conclusion which
> is not supported in your secondary sources, since this definitely becomes
> original research. An example of where I've tried to do this is in [[Hymn to
> St. Cecilia]], where I quote from /published/ primary source material to
> support views expressed in other secondary sources.
> Makemi
>
>
> On 3/17/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Primary sources are hard if not impossible to verify. Don't use them.
> >
> > Mgm
> >
> > On 3/17/06, Jonathan <dzonatas at dzonux.net> wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > If someone uses a primary source, should the context be quoted
> > directly?
> > > If it is not, would that constitute original research? Another words,
> > if
> > > someone takes the primary source and interprets it to his or her own
> > > need, it does seem like a re-creation of a primary source. It's like
> > > original research in an attempt to make the primary source a secondary
> > > source.
> > >
> > > I've seen this kind of discussion before. The result was that all
> > > scholarly work is always based on secondary scholastic sources. That
> > > does not give an answer to the primary sources as above, but it does
> > > shed some insight into non-scholarly source creep.
> > >
> > > Feedback is appreciated.
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Help me!

body:
On 3/17/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/16/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/16/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> > > I'd say this one is going to close as no consensus:
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...For_Dummies_books
> > >
> > > So, friends, can you help me to find merit in this article?  To be
> > > reconciled to the existence of what up to now I am unable to see as
> > > anything other than an absurdity?  Or is Tony right, and AfD is
> > > fatally borken?
> > > Guy (JzG)
> >
> > Non issue. We leave Afd to have their fun that kill it like to copyvio
> > it is. Takeing on the inclusionists head on will probably result in a
> > dummies watch or something.
>
> It may be utterly useless garbage, but how is it a copyvio?  I was
> under the impression that non-creative lists of facts (of which I
> think this is an example) weren't eligible for copyright.
>
> Kirill Lokshin

It is sorted. For example sorting the books into a "Handheld
computing" section is argubly creative.

--
geni


from_name: Jakob Voss

body:
R.O.C wrote:

> 6.3) i hope that the community can help choosing an english translation for
> the chinese name of conference, in accordance with foundation policies. the
> chinese community/conference would like to seek the authorization for using
> names/trademarks of the foundation, if needed. the name of the chinese
> conference is "??????" (literally, "chinese language wikipedia/wikimedia
> annual conference").

Is it

    chinese language wikipedia annual conference
or chinese language wikimedia annual conference
or chinese language wiki annual conference ?

I don't know any Chinese but reading the interwikilinks there is:

Wiki: ??
Wikipedia: ????
Wikimedia: ????
Wikimania: ????????

IMHO you can create any names you want in Chinese - there is only a
problem with the English translation:

???? is not "Wikimania" but just call it

"Chinese Wikipedia Conference" or "Chinese Wikimedia Conference".

> 6.3.1) i personally prefer the name "chinese wikimedia conference" and would
> like to know the procedures for seeking permissions from the foundation
> regarding the use of "wikimedia". there is no local chapters serving chinese
> projects at the moment (may not be any time soon either).

Since there is no local Wikimedia chapter you better call it "Chinese
Wikipedia Conference" because it's probably mostly about Wikipedia and
you will have less problems with the name. "Wikimedia" sounds too
official and will keep this discussion going on.

> 6.4) as explained earlier, the english (or western) word of "wikimania" had
> been interpreted and understood in chinese differently as it is supposed to
> be. the organizers and chinese users have been informed at zh.wikipedia that
> wikimania does not mean "wikimedia conference", but "international wikimedia
> conference" (sponsored by wikimedia foundation); it is also a trading name
> of wikimedia foundation instead of a generic term.

Wikimania is a special conference organised by the Wikimedia Foundation.
???? is not organised by the Wikimedia Foundation. So ???? is
not Wikimania.

Proof (Reductio ad absurdum / ???)

1. Assume ???? is Wikimania
2. Then ???? is organised by the Wikimedia Foundation
3. But ???? is not organised by the Wikimedia Foundation

I must admit that maybe this logic argument only works in western
philosophy ;-)

> hope that this is helpful.

Thanks a lot! Your language and thinking is very intersting but not easy
to understand from the european point of view :-)

Greetings,
Jakob

P.S: Wikipedia is so great! You can write mails with Chinese just using
interwiki links :-)


body:
Hi Jama Poulsen

Thxs for your answer.
I've allready seen your extension. But the problem with iframe in
general is, that - the brians posting above / FAQ on meta - mediawiki
can't be integrated with default settings.

I'll test changin settings according to FAQ.

night night

heinz

Jama Poulsen schrieb:
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 12:09:04AM +0100, Heinz wrote:
>> because of migrating to an other domain i would like to know how it is
>> possible to use the visible content of the new domain within the old
>> domain. i tested IFrames, but they dont work for mediawiki-enviroments.
>>
>> any hints?
>
> I use a small iframe extension for including a blog on the Wiki.
>
> See: http://wikicompany.org/wiki/Wikicompany:Iframe_extension
> Example: http://wikicompany.org/wiki/Wikicompany:Blog
>
> Jama Poulsen


from_name: Karl A. Krueger

subject: [WikiEN-l] more WP:OFFICE shenanigans

body:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 07:57:14PM -0500, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> Are there some particular biographies where we should be wary of
> Satanist manipulation?  ;-)

Yes:  [[Anton LaVey]] for one, where IIRC there have been edit wars
between partisans of the Church of Satan and the Temple of Set; also
over whether LaVey should be described as having founded _Satanism_
or just the _Church of Satan_.

There have also been squabbles on [[Aleister Crowley]] over whether
Crowley should be described as a Satanist.

--
Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger at whoi.edu>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Help me!

references:
<c5sj12lsfarb1nb4rqg45pc37kkhtnnu4p@4ax.com>
	<f80608430603161604h207bccbwf4bcb2a1bcefe72b@mail.gmail.com>
	<441A0B15.60406@epoptic.com>

body:
On 3/17/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> geni stated for the record:
>
> > Non issue. We leave Afd to have their fun that kill it like to copyvio
> > it is. Takeing on the inclusionists head on will probably result in a
> > dummies watch or something.
> >
> > --
> > geni
>
> A simple list cannot be copyrighted, so cannot be a copyright violation.
> [[Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service]].

I think the claim of "simple list" is somewhat doubtful. Remove the
subheadings and shove it into alphbetical order and you have a case.

> Your contempt of
> correctly-followed process and desire to circumvent consensus has
> transformed what may once have been merely an assumption into a
> conclusion supported by hard evidence.
>

This is going to be good. It adds to my collection of internaly
contradictory things I have been accused of.
--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Help me!

body:
On 3/17/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/16/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/17/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 3/16/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 3/16/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> > > > > I'd say this one is going to close as no consensus:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...For_Dummies_books
> > > > >
> > > > > So, friends, can you help me to find merit in this article?  To be
> > > > > reconciled to the existence of what up to now I am unable to see as
> > > > > anything other than an absurdity?  Or is Tony right, and AfD is
> > > > > fatally borken?
> > > > > Guy (JzG)
> > > >
> > > > Non issue. We leave Afd to have their fun that kill it like to copyvio
> > > > it is. Takeing on the inclusionists head on will probably result in a
> > > > dummies watch or something.
> > >
> > > It may be utterly useless garbage, but how is it a copyvio?  I was
> > > under the impression that non-creative lists of facts (of which I
> > > think this is an example) weren't eligible for copyright.
> > >
> > > Kirill Lokshin
> >
> > It is sorted. For example sorting the books into a "Handheld
> > computing" section is argubly creative.
>
> Well, it is prefaced with "Note that this list contains some
> duplicates; some books are part of multiple ...For Dummies series."
> I'm not terribly familiar with these books; do they have something,
> like a spine label, giving the series?  If that's the case, listing it
> by these isn't particularly creative on our part.
>
> Kirill Lokshin

It is however creative on the companies part.
--
geni


from_name: SJ

subject: [Wikitech-l] "Recentreversions" special page?

body:
To address the omnipresent desire of people to know about the speed of
vandalism reversion, it would be interesting to have a page showing
exactly that; recent reversions, and how long the previous revision
had remained there.

On the whole, this would be a positive stat.  It would be useful for
editors, great for live presentations, and would let reporters and
other writers offer more detailed information.

Implementation : anything reverted by an admin clicking the rollback
button should show up.  Other automatic-rv messages provided by
popup-assistants and vandal-fighting software should, too.

Has anyone tried producing something like this?  I suppose I should
file it as a mediazilla feature request...

SJ


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Help me!

references:
<c5sj12lsfarb1nb4rqg45pc37kkhtnnu4p@4ax.com>
	<f80608430603161604h207bccbwf4bcb2a1bcefe72b@mail.gmail.com>
	<441A0B15.60406@epoptic.com>
	<f80608430603161743q1e39df63jd15b97b6efcedfca@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On 3/17/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/17/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > geni stated for the record:
> >
> > > Non issue. We leave Afd to have their fun that kill it like to copyvio
> > > it is. Takeing on the inclusionists head on will probably result in a
> > > dummies watch or something.
> > >
> > > --
> > > geni
> >
> > A simple list cannot be copyrighted, so cannot be a copyright violation.
> > [[Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service]].
>
> I think the claim of "simple list" is somewhat doubtful. Remove the
> subheadings and shove it into alphbetical order and you have a case.

Even if it contains some creative work; someone else needs to have
made the same list before we did for it to be considered a copyvio. Us
Wikipedians are allowed to be creative ourselves. What list are we
violating?

Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Primary sources

body:
Primary sources are hard if not impossible to verify. Don't use them.

Mgm

On 3/17/06, Jonathan <dzonatas at dzonux.net> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> If someone uses a primary source, should the context be quoted directly?
> If it is not, would that constitute original research? Another words, if
> someone takes the primary source and interprets it to his or her own
> need, it does seem like a re-creation of a primary source. It's like
> original research in an attempt to make the primary source a secondary
> source.
>
> I've seen this kind of discussion before. The result was that all
> scholarly work is always based on secondary scholastic sources. That
> does not give an answer to the primary sources as above, but it does
> shed some insight into non-scholarly source creep.
>
> Feedback is appreciated.
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Anthony DiPierro

subject:
[WikiEN-l] When Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5
	license makes sense

body:
On 3/16/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/14/06, guru brahma <wikibra at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> >
> > Sometime back, there was a discussion about the unusual license of
> > http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Panopedia. Within the context of
> > Wikipedia, I was wondering if this license makes any sense at all. I think
> > there are some instances where this MAY make sense. For example, images
> > tagged as GFDL-self could be tagged this way. If I make an image, that is,
> > take a photograph of a leader or an actor I adore and do not want it to be
> > photoshopped into some unknown monstrosity, I would be more comfortable in
> > using Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license. The same would
> > apply to personal images that I upload on to my userpage. The last thing I
> > want to see in my image my moustache disappear or a beard appear ;). Any
> > thoughts which other areas this admittedly over-restrictive license can be
> > used if at all allowed on wikipedia?
> >
>
> I don't see any need for this. If you take a picture of Eddie Van Halen, and
> someone photoshops a beard and a corncob pipe onto it, you can be for damn
> sure that this image won't be apperaing on Wikipedia.

Unless it gets picked up by some tabloid newspaper or made into a
Pokemon (or a million other scenarios).

> And since people do
> this stuff all the time anyway without any kind of legal permission, you
> won't be any worse off by indirectly permitting it anyway. No one is going
> to see the image except a few of the joker's friends.
>
Well, I agree with you that it probably doesn't make much of a
difference.  But not for the reasons you're giving.  Rather, I believe
it doesn't really matter because photoshopping a picture of Eddie Van
Halen to add a beard and a corncob pipe onto it, even without
permission, is probably fair use anyway.

> The only place where this is really different is when we are trying to
> rework an image for legitimate purposes, and this license only introduces
> barriers to that. There is no benefit to the project really.
>
There's a benefit if people are willing to release images under such a
license that aren't willing to release these images under a less
restrictive license.  (This is true regardless of whether or not their
thought process is logically sound.)

> The bottom line is that who are highly protective of their intellectual
> property probably should not be contributing it to Wikipedia.

CC-BY-ND is a fairly permissive license.  It's much more permissive
than, for instance, the license Wikimedia provides for its own logos.
By your rationale Wikimedia shouldn't be contributing to Wikipedia.

Anthony


from_name: Jonathan

subject: [Wikitech-l] Distributed process pool

body:
Hello,

Is there a way analyze the wikipedia logs to figure out what processes
takes the most time? There is no immediate need, but I wanted to shoot
off an idea to consider. If we were able to capture the processes that
do take a heavy server load and push them onto a distributed process
pool, would it help wikipedia or mediawiki in general? I'd imagine there
would be a difference with process time over the speed of network
traffic. Let say we determined that the code that creates a diff for two
pages is a hog and can be put into the pool. We could use something like
BOINC, http://boinc.berkeley.edu/, to standardize the pool. We can add
the diff process to the pool as the server load gets heavy.  The use of
BOINC is more specific to research tasks, and it would need to be
different for mediawiki. I just used the idea to keep this message short
to get your feedback.

Thanks

Jonathan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Primary sources

body:
Matt R wrote:

>--- MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Primary sources are hard if not impossible to verify. Don't use them.
>>
>>
>
>Depends on the topic, I think. Lots of Wikipedia articles survive by citing
>sources from contemporary news articles, for example. I'm not sure the
>primary/secondary source distinction is particularly useful for us. I'd argue
>we need only to make sure that A) the source can be verified to say what it's
>claimed to say; B) we can have some reasonable basis to believe the source is
>trustworthy; and C) we don't add any additional interpretation of our own
>beyond what the source says.
>
>-- Matt
>
And point C seems like the hard one to determine. If it is not hard, it
is at least contentious. For example, let's say there is a statement in
a primary source that says:
    Joe said he saw the ghost.

The article then uses that as a source and changes it to state:
    Joe believes in ghosts.

It might be true, but it seems like an interpretation based on the
possibility that Joe might have actually lied despite his belief in
ghosts or not.

WP:NOR doesn't seem to cover this kind of depth, or does it?

Jonathan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Primary sources

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 3/17/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>That's only true for unpublished primary sources, though.  Plenty of
>>primary sources (e.g. memoirs, diaries, etc.) are quite easily
>>verifiable, if not always reliable.
>>
>>
>
>They're reliable if they're being treated as a primary source (Eg,
>Lord Kent wrote on the 14th of March 1932 that the Germans would
>invade the next day). Treated as a secondary source (Germany invaded
>England on the 15th of March 1932 [1]), they are unreliable.
>
>Steve
>
>[1] Lord Kent's diary, 14th of March 1932
>
Excellent example.

I wonder if we can cite personal interviews under that same pretense.

Jonathan


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Off-wiki vs. on-wiki discussion

body:
On Mar 17, 2006, at 7:34 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:

> Can I just make the comment that this thread shows why email is much
> better adapted to serious discussions that Wiki software is. Most of
> the comments on AfD are "Delete, per nom" or "Keep <insert brief spiel
> here>". Whereas on email people are actually able to develop ideas
> like "it's a copyvio" beyond that simple troublesome phrase.
>
> And to think there was a proposed policy to ban offsite discussion
> about Wikipedia...:)

I propose a new guideline. I call it, "On-wiki policy discussion
considered harmful".

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


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Help me!

body:
On 3/17/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> I'd say this one is going to close as no consensus:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...For_Dummies_books
>
> So, friends, can you help me to find merit in this article?  To be
> reconciled to the existence of what up to now I am unable to see as
> anything other than an absurdity?  Or is Tony right, and AfD is
> fatally borken?

Merit, you say? Imagine this: There's an article about the Dummies
series itself. Imagine this article makes a claim like "Most books are
now about lifestyle rather than technical subjects". By linking to the
actual list you could form your own impression.

I don't totally accept the "It's on the publisher's website, we don't
need to duplicate it" argument. Is the publisher's website going to be
published on the Wikipedia 1.0 website? Is it going to be printed? etc
etc.

No, I don't see a *lot* of merit in this article. But I don't see that
Wikipedia would be much better off without it either. (Assuming it's
not a copyvio).

Steve


from_name: Andrew Lih

body:
Hi all,

I apologize for not being able to jump in earlier to bridge the gap
between ZH users and the rest, since I've been done much of that in
the past. (I'm in the process of moving up to Beijing, so I've not
even been neglecting the mailing lists.)

Here's some observations:

- Hong Kong is an ideal location for the conference for now, since
it's accessible from Taiwan, PRC, Malaysia and Singapore, and there is
complete freedom of speech here.
- The name, if translated literally, for "?????S??????" (zhong wen wei ji
nian hui) means "Chinese (language) Wiki Annual Meeting"
- I agree it's better not to use "Wikimania," as it's confusing
internally, and even moreso to outsiders. It's not Wikimania East or
Wikimania equivalent for the other side of the world. I would suggest
Chinese Wikimedia Conference or something of the like.
- Apologies again to many Taiwan, HK and PRC users who have contacted
me in the last few weeks for planning help, but have not had the time
to do so. After March 20, I will have more time to lend a hand.

-Andrew

On 3/17/06, Jakob Voss <jakob.voss at nichtich.de> wrote:
> R.O.C wrote:
>
> > 6.3) i hope that the community can help choosing an english translation for
> > the chinese name of conference, in accordance with foundation policies. the
> > chinese community/conference would like to seek the authorization for using
> > names/trademarks of the foundation, if needed. the name of the chinese
> > conference is "???????S????" (literally, "chinese language wikipedia/wikimedia
> > annual conference").
>
> Is it
>
>     chinese language wikipedia annual conference
> or chinese language wikimedia annual conference
> or chinese language wiki annual conference ?
>
> I don't know any Chinese but reading the interwikilinks there is:
>
> Wiki: ?S??
> Wikipedia: ????????
> Wikimedia: ?S?????w
> Wikimania: ?S?????w???H????
>
> IMHO you can create any names you want in Chinese - there is only a
> problem with the English translation:
>
> ?S?????? is not "Wikimania" but just call it
>
> "Chinese Wikipedia Conference" or "Chinese Wikimedia Conference".
>
> > 6.3.1) i personally prefer the name "chinese wikimedia conference" and would
> > like to know the procedures for seeking permissions from the foundation
> > regarding the use of "wikimedia". there is no local chapters serving chinese
> > projects at the moment (may not be any time soon either).
>
> Since there is no local Wikimedia chapter you better call it "Chinese
> Wikipedia Conference" because it's probably mostly about Wikipedia and
> you will have less problems with the name. "Wikimedia" sounds too
> official and will keep this discussion going on.
>
> > 6.4) as explained earlier, the english (or western) word of "wikimania" had
> > been interpreted and understood in chinese differently as it is supposed to
> > be. the organizers and chinese users have been informed at zh.wikipedia that
> > wikimania does not mean "wikimedia conference", but "international wikimedia
> > conference" (sponsored by wikimedia foundation); it is also a trading name
> > of wikimedia foundation instead of a generic term.
>
> Wikimania is a special conference organised by the Wikimedia Foundation.
> ?S?????? is not organised by the Wikimedia Foundation. So ?S?????? is
> not Wikimania.
>
> Proof (Reductio ad absurdum / ???C??)
>
> 1. Assume ?S?????? is Wikimania
> 2. Then ?S?????? is organised by the Wikimedia Foundation
> 3. But ?S?????? is not organised by the Wikimedia Foundation
>
> I must admit that maybe this logic argument only works in western
> philosophy ;-)
>
> > hope that this is helpful.
>
> Thanks a lot! Your language and thinking is very intersting but not easy
> to understand from the european point of view :-)
>
> Greetings,
> Jakob
>
> P.S: Wikipedia is so great! You can write mails with Chinese just using
> interwiki links :-)
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Primary sources

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>This kind of interpretation is perfectly acceptable imho. If there's
>no particular reason to think that Joe lied (ie, he didn't say so the
>next day), then using words like "believes" or "thinks" is not
>contentious. Occasionally a little unclear, particularly if the
>person's current beliefs are unclear, but that's more a question of
>style than an application of NOR. Similar kind of deal if you say
>"Joe, angry about the lack of consultation, believed he had been
>misled", when your source says something like "Joe said yesterday,
>"Those bastards told me they weren't going to do anything without
>asking me, but they screwed me over".
>
>My example isn't very well worded, but I'm trying to show that you can
>deduce "angry" from the colourful language, and "believed" as a
>convention for "said that he thought".
>
>Steve
>
I agree with the notion that logic inferences can be made. However, the
use of "belief" signals a firm distinction from just "thought." I don't
think it is generally acceptable to use "belief" based on what someone
says unless there is more firm evidence to back up that belief. There
are logical interpretations for the use of "belief." "We believe Joe saw
a ghost," or "Joe thought he believed in ghosts." (The later "thought"
changes the whole meaning of "belief.")

These notions are evident, and they make some Wikipedia articles gravely
useless. When I have to go and verify the sources themselves to find out
why it was so strongly stated "so and so believed..." by convention
alone, I might as well just skip the text of the article and read
through the reference lists. The article itself gave me absolutely no
knowledge to the reason why such beliefs exist.

Jonathan


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Help me!

body:
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 01:09:44 +0000, you wrote:

>It is sorted. For example sorting the books into a "Handheld
>computing" section is argubly creative.

That's just the sections from the dummies.com website - each subheader
contains a straight copy & paste of the identically headed section on
dummies.com.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Steve Summit

subject: [WikiEN-l] Help me!

body:
>> It may be utterly useless garbage, but how is it a copyvio?  I was
>> under the impression that non-creative lists of facts (of which I
>> think this is an example) weren't eligible for copyright.
>
> It is sorted. For example sorting the books into a "Handheld
> computing" section is argubly creative.

Guy Chapman already made this point, but it's worth repeating:
that "arguably creative" work was evidently done by the
publisher, not us.

The claim has been made (and I have no reason to doubt it) that
all 46k of that article was cut-and-pasted from the publisher's
website.

My own opinion is that, as a general rule, any time you
cut-and-paste that much information from someone else's work,
it's probably wrong.  It may not be wrong because it's a
copyright violation per se, but it's probably wrong all the
same.  Just the fact that you're thinking of cutting and pasting
that much information can serve as a simple alarm bell saying
"I probably shouldn't do this."

					Steve Summit
					[[User:Ummit]]
					scs at eskimo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Primary sources

body:
Not only is it important when it is stated explicitly for such reason,
but it is also important to know what group particularly "believes" it
is so important. Also, it is important not to state the cart before the
horse in such instances.

It appears these notions are known in practice, but it isn't covered in
depth on guidelines. I wonder if it is possible.

Jonathan

Fastfission wrote:

>And an easy way to even get around it is to make it an instance of
>reported speech.
>
>"Joe wrote in his diary that he saw the ghost" -- let the reader parse
>out, if they want, whether he was just being silly or not. If Joe
>happens to be someone whose belief in spiritualism is important to
>state explicitly (i.e., Alfred Russel Wallace), then it is likely a
>secondary source has already commented on it.
>
>FF
>


from_name: joshuaadamf at aol.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] blocking problem

body:
I have been falsely accused of vandalizing Wikipedia pages since
October 2005. Many of the complaints I see on my user talk page deal
with me editing pages that I have never even seen before. I do not know
what is going on, but I do find it incredibly unfair that I am
restricted from editing on Wikipedia because of something that possibly
someone else might have done.


from_name: Justin Cormack

subject: [WikiEN-l] Primary sources

body:
On 17 Mar 2006, at 05:57, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

> Primary sources are hard if not impossible to verify. Don't use them.
>

Thats not always true. (And wikisouce is there to demonstrate that).

Justinc


from_name: Matt R

subject: [WikiEN-l] Primary sources

body:
--- MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:

> Primary sources are hard if not impossible to verify. Don't use them.

Depends on the topic, I think. Lots of Wikipedia articles survive by citing
sources from contemporary news articles, for example. I'm not sure the
primary/secondary source distinction is particularly useful for us. I'd argue
we need only to make sure that A) the source can be verified to say what it's
claimed to say; B) we can have some reasonable basis to believe the source is
trustworthy; and C) we don't add any additional interpretation of our own
beyond what the source says.

-- Matt

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com

___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Primary sources

body:
On 3/17/06, Jonathan <dzonatas at dzonux.net> wrote:
> It appears these notions are known in practice, but it isn't covered in
> depth on guidelines. I wonder if it is possible.

Unfortunately, the more is added to our guidelines, the less likely
they are to be actually read and understood.  The point is better made
on article talk pages or to particular editors, I feel.

-Matt


from_name: Kirill Lokshin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Primary sources

body:
On 3/17/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> Primary sources are hard if not impossible to verify. Don't use them.

That's only true for unpublished primary sources, though.  Plenty of
primary sources (e.g. memoirs, diaries, etc.) are quite easily
verifiable, if not always reliable.

Kirill Lokshin


subject: [Wikitech-l] Distributed process pool

body:
Lars Aronsson wrote:

>This sounds like a nice theory, but what you need first is the
>numbers.  There are just sooo many more (100 times? 1000 times?)
>normal page views than diffs, history views or edits.  And the
>normal page views are taken care of by caching proxies (Squid)
>already.
>
>I don't know what the numbers are today, or what the
>hit-miss-ratio of the Squid cache is.  It would be interesting to
>know.  Are these statistics documented anywhere?
>
>Page requests per day hasn't been documented after October 2004,
>http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm
>
The diff was just an example. If we could push the bots onto the pool,
that would be another example. I don't know if that would be helpful.

With the numbers, we need to consider server load. Squid is one method
to off-load the work a tier away from the server.

Anything that can be fetched from the database once, packaged together,
and passed to a node to be processed can be off-loaded. The diff seem
like an easy target to make an example out of it.

Jonathan


body:
On 3/17/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> My whole point is that there are exceptions.  I do disagree with you
> though that Wikimedia is the *only* corporation which has practical
> legal reasons not to license certain images under a free license,
> though.

I don't think Fastfission claimed that.

That other corporations also have good reason to not license images
freely doesn't mean we /have/ to change our policy to accept less free
images, though.

-Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] Primary sources

body:
On 3/17/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/17/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > That's only true for unpublished primary sources, though.  Plenty of
> > primary sources (e.g. memoirs, diaries, etc.) are quite easily
> > verifiable, if not always reliable.
>
> They're reliable if they're being treated as a primary source (Eg,
> Lord Kent wrote on the 14th of March 1932 that the Germans would
> invade the next day). Treated as a secondary source (Germany invaded
> England on the 15th of March 1932 [1]), they are unreliable.
>
> Steve
>
> [1] Lord Kent's diary, 14th of March 1932

Which is only part of the picture, of course.  Certain primary sources
are quite reliable (or as reliable as anything else we have, anyway)
-- for example, Guicciardini's History of Italy is a primary source,
but is generally considered to be a highly reliable one.

In any case, all sources should be cited; we can then examine their
reliability on a case-by-case basis.

Kirill Lokshin


body:
On 3/17/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> On Mar 17, 2006, at 7:34 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> > Can I just make the comment that this thread shows why email is much
> > better adapted to serious discussions that Wiki software is. Most of
> > the comments on AfD are "Delete, per nom" or "Keep <insert brief spiel
> > here>". Whereas on email people are actually able to develop ideas
> > like "it's a copyvio" beyond that simple troublesome phrase.
> >
> > And to think there was a proposed policy to ban offsite discussion
> > about Wikipedia...:)
>
> I propose a new guideline. I call it, "On-wiki policy discussion
> considered harmful".

We should combine that with the earlier discussion, though -- just
think of how much time a "Policy discussion considered harmful"
guideline would save us ;-)

Kirill Lokshin


body:
On 3/17/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> You don't do pubcrawls? I can think of several at my uni that do:
>
> - the Engineering society
> - the Maths society
> - the Ski society
> - the Stein Club
> - the Medicine students society

Oh yeah, most of the big clubs do. Just not that particular club.

Well, I think. In this case, the university cracked down several years
ago on "alcohol-related" events. Something like, you can have alcohol
at an event, but you can't advertise an event as being about alcohol.
I seem to recall on at least one occasion hearing a public
announcement by a club along the lines of "Sorry everyone, the pub
crawl's been cancelled. In case anyone's wondering where I'll be this
afternoon, I'm going for a walk around the neighbourhood, starting at
pub X in 30 minutes."

Pity there isn't a Wikien-l-OT list to carry on this sort of fun conversation :)

Steve


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] Primary sources

body:
It seems to me to fall back in part on the nature of the claim.
"Interpretation" often crossed over into original research, but
quoting can go both ways. If the quotes selected are used to
illustrate a point which can be found in secondary literature, that
seems fine to me (i.e., quoting directly from _Origin of Species_ to
explain Darwin's thoughts on some point in a way which would not be
controversial to anyone), but cherry-picking quotations or using
quotations to support points not in secondary literature is original
research (i.e. quoting directly from _Origin of Species_ to support
your own, idiosyncratic and unorthodox interpretation).

If the source is published, quoting from it should be fine, as long as
the point of the quoting is not problematic and one could ultimately
find the same argument made about the source (implicitly or
explicitly) in secondary literature.

FF

On 3/17/06, Jonathan <dzonatas at dzonux.net> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> If someone uses a primary source, should the context be quoted directly?
> If it is not, would that constitute original research? Another words, if
> someone takes the primary source and interprets it to his or her own
> need, it does seem like a re-creation of a primary source. It's like
> original research in an attempt to make the primary source a secondary
> source.
>
> I've seen this kind of discussion before. The result was that all
> scholarly work is always based on secondary scholastic sources. That
> does not give an answer to the primary sources as above, but it does
> shed some insight into non-scholarly source creep.
>
> Feedback is appreciated.
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Alex Knowles

subject: [Wikitech-l] RFC: forcing login: returntoLogin()

body:
Hi all,
   I'm new to mediawiki (brand new), and finding it excellent. I hope this
is the correct forum, apologies if it's not or this is has been discussed
before.

   I've just set up a small private wiki, and set it so the only whitelist
page is Special:UserLogin.  However I didn't want that to be the main
page, and obviously didn't want the LoginRequired page to redirect to the
main page = loop.

   This is very similar to this post:
  http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/mediawiki/45763

   My solution (which doesn't seemed to be mentioned in the answers to
similar requests i'd found), was to add a returntoLogin method to
OutputPage.php:

function returntoLogin() {
                 global $wgOut;
                 $titleObj = Title::newFromText("Special:Userlogin" );
                 $wgOut->addMeta( 'http:Refresh', '5;url=' .
$titleObj->escapeFullURL() );
                 $this->addHTML("You will be refreshed to the login page in
5 seconds");

         }

Then i changed loginToUse() from this: $this->returntoMain() to
$this->returntoLogin().

I also changed SpecialUserlogout.php to use this as well.

Does this make any sense?  am i duplicating functionality that i haven't
found?

TIA,
Alex


subject: [WikiEN-l] Primary sources

body:
And an easy way to even get around it is to make it an instance of
reported speech.

"Joe wrote in his diary that he saw the ghost" -- let the reader parse
out, if they want, whether he was just being silly or not. If Joe
happens to be someone whose belief in spiritualism is important to
state explicitly (i.e., Alfred Russel Wallace), then it is likely a
secondary source has already commented on it.

FF

On 3/17/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/17/06, Jonathan <dzonatas at dzonux.net> wrote:
> > And point C seems like the hard one to determine. If it is not hard, it
> > is at least contentious. For example, let's say there is a statement in
> > a primary source that says:
> >     Joe said he saw the ghost.
> >
> > The article then uses that as a source and changes it to state:
> >     Joe believes in ghosts.
> >
> > It might be true, but it seems like an interpretation based on the
> > possibility that Joe might have actually lied despite his belief in
> > ghosts or not.
>
> This kind of interpretation is perfectly acceptable imho. If there's
> no particular reason to think that Joe lied (ie, he didn't say so the
> next day), then using words like "believes" or "thinks" is not
> contentious. Occasionally a little unclear, particularly if the
> person's current beliefs are unclear, but that's more a question of
> style than an application of NOR. Similar kind of deal if you say
> "Joe, angry about the lack of consultation, believed he had been
> misled", when your source says something like "Joe said yesterday,
> "Those bastards told me they weren't going to do anything without
> asking me, but they screwed me over".
>
> My example isn't very well worded, but I'm trying to show that you can
> deduce "angry" from the colourful language, and "believed" as a
> convention for "said that he thought".
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On 3/17/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> CC-BY-ND is a fairly permissive license.  It's much more permissive
> than, for instance, the license Wikimedia provides for its own logos.
> By your rationale Wikimedia shouldn't be contributing to Wikipedia.

Oh come on. We all know this is a special situation. I am so *bored*
with people saying, "But the Wikimedia logos are not licensed freely!"
and implying that this is somehow has any implications for policy.
They are the single and sole category of exception for a very
straightforward and practical legal reason.

FF


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Distributed process pool

body:
Jonathan wrote:
> Is there a way analyze the wikipedia logs to figure out what processes
> takes the most time?

For some past stuff, see:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ameta.wikimedia.org+profiling

Domas and Tim are more recently playing with kcachegrind and things to get some
even more fine-grained recordings and pretty visualizations.

> There is no immediate need, but I wanted to shoot
> off an idea to consider. If we were able to capture the processes that
> do take a heavy server load and push them onto a distributed process
> pool, would it help wikipedia or mediawiki in general?

Well, that's basically what the apache cluster is... :)

> Let say we determined that the code that creates a diff for two
> pages is a hog and can be put into the pool. We could use something like
> BOINC, http://boinc.berkeley.edu/, to standardize the pool. We can add
> the diff process to the pool as the server load gets heavy.

Well, diffs for instance are very rare compared to other tasks; they've never
been an overall drain on resources, but "pathological" diffs on very large pages
can be slow, which is frustrating for interactive performance. When the diff
you're looking at takes forever to return (or times out and doesn't return at
all) it's rather a pain.

(Note that diff has already been hugely sped up between caching and rewriting it
as a C++ plugin.)

Offloading a potentially heavy task like diffing or thumbnail generation to yet
another set of servers could have plusses or minuses; a big minus is that such
queuing could negatively impact interactive performance. You don't just want
that diff some day; you want it right when you click on it.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- 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/wikitech-l/attachments/20060317/6cb8190b/attachment.pgp>