from_name: Jon Harald Søby

subject: [Foundation-l] structure

body:
On 2/13/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The discussions on this mailing list are very interesting, but over 200
> > emails about one single subject is a *very very* lot. Lots of people are
> > fleeing from this list due to the number of emails (not everybody has gmail;
> > some people still get all email through pop). I would like to suggest two
> > possible solutions:
>
> Just switch to the daily digest, that way you only get 1 email a day.

When I used daily digest, I got something like five digests a day,
because it only included 10 emails in each digest, and it didn't
thread in Gmail, so it made discussions even harder to follow.

What I think should be done about Foundation-l is to split it into two
parts: one, called, tada, foundation-l, about _Foundation_ matters,
and one called wikimedia-l, about _community_ matters. The way it is
today the two are mixed, even though they have quite little to do with
eachother (well, the issues discussed don't; of course the Foundation
itself has a lot to do with the community).

--
Best regards,
Jon Harald S?by

Website - http://www.alqualonde.com/
Wikipedia - http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruker:Jhs
MSN messenger - jhsoby at gmail.com
Skype - jon.harald.soby


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject: [Foundation-l] structure


list: foundation-l

from_name: David Gerard

subject:
[Foundation-l] What is the difference between MediaWiki.org and
	the Meta-Wiki?

body:
On 13/02/07, Virgil Ierubino <virgil.ierubino at gmail.com> wrote:

> This is obvious in many cases - MediaWiki.org has the manual... but then
> Meta has the extensions? ...or they're being moved to the former. But the
> latter also has "manual"-like elements. Where are you actually *meant* to
> document proposals? ...for new wikis on Meta, for software upgrades on
> MediaWiki, or just put it all on BugZilla? And... I'm confused.

The MediaWiki manuals were originally on Meta, but are slowly being
moved across to mediawiki.org .

(Sometimes a rewrite is needed, because Meta is GFDL but lots of
mediawiki.org is public domain or equivalent ("copyright but may be
used for any purpose" or equivalent).)

> Just, what are the actual distinct purposes of the two wikis? What kind of
> information should always go on one and never the other? Thanks.

Meta is for "meta" administrative and "where are we going?" stuff
pertaining to the operation of the Wikimedia wikis.

- d.


list: wikien-l

from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Your comments on wikien-l regarding adminship

body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:

>Using the same system for assigning
>admin powers as we use for assigning editing powers *will* result in
>large amounts of admin vandalism, that's just simple extrapolation.
>
Extrapolation is indeed the logic of the simple.  Had we depended
entirely on extrapolating the visible world of Newtonian physics,
Einstein's relativity might never have been discovered.

>Saying that cleaning up admin vandalism will be harder than cleaning
>up regular vandalism is a logical deduction, it's not based on
>evidence, you're right, but it is based on very solid reasoning.
>
Wow!  Do you understand what you said?  You have managed to undermine
the entire 17th century debate between rationalism and empiricism. =-O

Ec


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Foundation-l] Set up a daily-image-l mailing list?

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

Brianna Laugher wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Would there be any objection to setting up a daily-image-l mailing
> list akin to English Wikipedia's daily-article-l, but for featured
> pictures from Commons?
>
> Of course, for bandwidth reasons, we would only link to the image,
> instead of emailing it to each subscriber :) with brief multilingual
> labels and copyright credit.
>
> [[m:Mailing list]] just says to contact a dev to start a new list, but
> I imagine they like to know that the idea has been run past other
> people first. :)

Happy to set it up, gimme a list admin's address to deal with the poor
thing. :)

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFF0gZ8wRnhpk1wk44RAiRmAJ97TVTKIhn+qQMcxitlCXsfzgvvVwCg07gD
d49IusBwes8iSsY/kD/y/r8=
=/+sv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
Hi! Meta-Wiki is (in theory, at least) for co?rdination between the
different Wikimedia projects. So this is where discussions for new
wikis, etc, should go. The MediaWiki wiki, on the other hand, is
mainly for documentation of the MediaWiki software and its extensions,
while for bug reports and feature requests, you should use BugZilla
(a.k.a. MediaZilla, to add to the confusion).

On 2/13/07, Virgil Ierubino <virgil.ierubino at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is obvious in many cases - MediaWiki.org has the manual... but then
> Meta has the extensions? ...or they're being moved to the former. But the
> latter also has "manual"-like elements. Where are you actually *meant* to
> document proposals? ...for new wikis on Meta, for software upgrades on
> MediaWiki, or just put it all on BugZilla? And... I'm confused.
>
> Just, what are the actual distinct purposes of the two wikis? What kind of
> information should always go on one and never the other? Thanks.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Best regards,
Jon Harald S?by

Website - http://www.alqualonde.com/
Wikipedia - http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruker:Jhs
MSN messenger - jhsoby at gmail.com
Skype - jon.harald.soby


subject: [Foundation-l] Mayflower: Wikimedia Commons media search

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

Tangotango wrote:
> (Sorry if this looks like an advertisement; I don't usually advertise
> new tools, but I thought the foundation-l and commons-l communities
> would be interested.)

You probably should be popping into wikitech-l instead. :)

We're definitely interested in seeing better tools for Commons
integrated and set up within our primary infrastructure.

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFF0gd9wRnhpk1wk44RApUAAJ4jVH6J3TaRy0nd28SrBdwseKn1/wCfV2AV
0FPhqHvqDwXpJs9qNv1FZgg=
=yCqT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Guillaume Paumier

subject: [Foundation-l] structure

body:
On 2/13/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The discussions on this mailing list are very interesting, but over 200
> > emails about one single subject is a *very very* lot. Lots of people are
> > fleeing from this list due to the number of emails (not everybody has
> gmail;
> > some people still get all email through pop). I would like to suggest
> two
> > possible solutions:
>
> Just switch to the daily digest, that way you only get 1 email a day.

The problem isn't the number of emails you get, but the [[signal-to-noise
ratio]] of this list. Getting one daily digest doesn't make it easier to
find the relevant emails among all the sterile ? discussions ?.

--
Guillaume Paumier
[[m:User:guillom]]
http://www.wikimedia.org


subject: [Foundation-l] structure


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin burnout

body:
> I think the last point is where the difference lies. A pertinent
> question is, what is your assessment of the current system? If you're
> satisfied with it, then of course you would view the potential gain to
> be small. If, like many, you see the current system as severely
> dysfunctional, then the potential gain is significant.

I would say the current systems works well in the majority of cases,
although it is far from perfect. As it only goes wrong in a minority
of cases, the potential gain from any new system is quite small, so
the increased risk from it also needs to be small to be worth it. This
proposal doesn't fix every case, so it's gain is even smaller, and as
such requires the risk to be even smaller, which it isn't.


body:
> Ah, but fortunately we have anti-vandal-bots, too, automating much of
> that work. If necessary we could run a lot more of them, tuned to catch
> a lot more vandalism, but it's not a big enough deal (yet, anyway).

A half-competent vandalbot writer could write a bot that the
anti-vandal bots wouldn't spot. Virus scanners need to be constantly
updated to keep up with new viruses, our anti-vandal-bots would need
to be constantly updated just the same, and the damage that could be
done before the update is finished would be too great.


references:
<bd4c411e0702090937y3482dadcm2a9d0f99b70eefd3@mail.gmail.com>
	<eqiicb$7rs$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<a4359dff0702091319s5494dd52yebf530b1ce2fc9c3@mail.gmail.com>
	<eqlo7v$g43$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<a4359dff0702101639o5ef2e22fxf24741f512637a43@mail.gmail.com>
	<eqqd51$8sq$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<a4359dff0702121158i2d0129abweb4aa656a586a8f@mail.gmail.com>
	<eqqseq$bnf$3@sea.gmane.org>
	<a4359dff0702121526lfbd151aref228ba4eaacd3f1@mail.gmail.com>
	<45D108F4.6020506@gmail.com>

body:
> What's the harm in NOT allowing admins to unblock themselves?

I'm not sure really. I'm not sure there would be much gain, though -
all it requires is a sockpuppet to do the unblocking. If it's easy for
a vandal to get one admin account, it's easy enough for them to get
multiple.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin burnout (deputy admins)

body:
geni wrote:

>On 2/11/07, William Pietri wrote:
>
>
>>I thought the theory was that editors check that work, yes? We trust
>>editors to check each other, and I had assumed that the same mechanism
>>was the main check on administrative error and malfeasance.
>>
>>
>Nah. Unless you are rather unluckly or do something stupid you would
>be unlikely to be caught slipping in a few non legit deletions along
>with the legit ones.
>
:'(

What many of the unlucky ones don't understand is that they need to
apologize profusely for the error of their ways rather than trying to
defend the indefensible.  How they deal with discovery has a lot of
influence on whether their future errors will be discovered. ;-)

Ec


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: David Monniaux

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] [Foundation-l] How to edit wikipedia when stupid
 mods block all Thai ip addresses

body:
Mathias Schindler a ?crit :
> I would like to ask you to donate at least 10% of your efforts which
> are usually spent on this list by you to convince the Thailand
> government or the Thai ISPs to fix their internet access so we might
> be able to ban "just the right people" in the future. 10% should be
As a general rule, telling people "go fix the local government" is of no
help.

You can't imagine seriously that Walter, an average non-Thai citizen,
would have any influence on the Thai government, which, to top it, is
not exactly democratic? Since this is unrealistic, what you're doing is
just inflammatory irony, and it does not help.


from_name: · Firefoxman

subject: [WikiEN-l] In hospital

body:
Why in the world did the mods let this through?

On 2/10/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) <nsle.wikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Seriously, can we please just ignore his posts and not feed him?
>
> On 10/02/07, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Ryan Wetherell stated for the record:
> > > With all due respect, how is this relevant to any Wikimedia project,
> > > much less the English Wikipedia?
> > >
> > > --Ryan
> > >
> > > P.S. I notice we don't have a [[C. Bean Transport]] article yet.
> >
> > It is relevant to his hope that a tale of misfortune and injustice will
> > cause us to be overcome with pity and forget what a liar he is.
> >
> > - --
> > Sean Barrett     | Back off, man, I'm a scientist.
> > sean at epoptic.com | --Dr. Peter Venkman
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> >
> > iD8DBQFFzeeP/SVOiq2uhHMRAtWGAJ4zRrN460F+bdv1G5mLh2GeUZn1wgCeKJrn
> > rJd42DOm3icnDpZShROeJNQ=
> > =7sku
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
-Firefoxman


body:
Well, I am all for it, but, then again, I am a bit biased as I am not an
admin, and want to be one.

On 2/10/07, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:
>
> Having read with great interest much of the discussion, I'd like to
> offer another proposal for reforming the way we get admins. This isn't
> really something I'm championing; I'm just throwing it out in hopes of
> advancing the discussion. Many of the elements are borrowed, and if this
> goes anywhere, I'll gladly go back and cite them.
>
> The spirit of this is that there is a lot of relatively uncontroversial
> admin work that needs to be done, so that we should let a wider set
> responsible people do some of the basic mop-and-bucket stuff. For
> controversial stuff, that would effectively stay in the hands of current
> admins. It's more "I guess it's my turn to clean the bathroom" than "I
> run this place."
>
>
> The basics:
>
>     * We introduce the status of "deputy admin" (other possible names:
>       provisional, temporary, transient, acting, probationary).
>     * Deputies have all the powers of a regular admin.
>     * If stepping into something controversial or difficult, they are
>       expected to get help from a permanent admin.
>     * The term is limited to, say, 3 months.
>     * Application is similar, but the bar is lower:
>           o they should have a modest history as a useful contributor;
>           o they should have demonstrated reasonable knowledge of how
>             Wikipedia works;
>           o they shouldn't be obviously dangerous;
>           o no serious objections means they pass.
>     * They can be more easily be de-admined. Possible mechanisms:
>           o their request stays open, and a serious objection means they
>             lose the bit;
>           o any N (1? 2? 3?) admins can agree to de-admin them with
>             cause; or
>           o any serious, validated complaint of admin power abuse ends
>             their term.
>     * After their term is up, there is a mandatory break of say, 6
>       weeks, during which they are just another editor.
>     * After the break, they can:
>           o carry on editing, without prejudice or pressure,
>           o apply for another term as a deputy, or
>           o apply for administrator-for-life status through the RfA
> process.
>
>
> So that's the basic notion. Like a lot of what goes on here, I think
> there will be a lot of useful social convention that grows up around the
> core mechanism.
>
> Why do it? Here's my thinking:
>
> Pros:
>
>     * Many hands make light work.
>     * Experienced admins can focus on the hard stuff.
>     * Gives deputies a track record for future full RfA.
>     * Helps de-emphasizes adminship as status item.
>     * Limited scope and term will make it less appealing to those
>       seeking admin-hood for the power.
>     * Helps identify responsible people.
>     * Wider distribution of power means less us-vs-them divide.
>     * Requires no code changes.
>
>
> Cons:
>
>     * More admins to keep track of.
>     * The process of deciding who gets in and who doesn't is more work,
>       and possibly more drama than the current setup.
>     * More work blessing and de-blessing deputy admins.
>
>
>
> Naturally, I don't think this would solve all of the problems that have
> come up, but do folks think it would be a step forward?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> William
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
-Firefoxman


from_name: Gary Kirk

subject: [WikiEN-l] Allowed use of list email addresses

body:
I know that, and I don't have a problem with that, but would suggest
the user not go about his enquiries in this way.

On 2/13/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) <nsle.wikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
> I can confirm that I did. To be fair, the archive is available publicly, so
> by contributing to this you're letting everyone know your email address.
>
> On 13/02/07, Gary Kirk <gary.kirk at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Did anyone else receive an email recently with the subject
> > ''Requesting to make comments for e-learning wiki''? I did, from a
> > student in Thailand, and I found it rather rude. Surely people are not
> > supposed to randomly grab addresses from mailing lists they subscribe
> > to?
> > --
> > Gary Kirk
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Gary Kirk


body:
On 12/02/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:

> Would there be any objection to setting up a daily-image-l mailing
> list akin to English Wikipedia's daily-article-l, but for featured
> pictures from Commons?
> Of course, for bandwidth reasons, we would only link to the image,
> instead of emailing it to each subscriber :) with brief multilingual
> labels and copyright credit.

Sounds great to me!

- d.


from_name: Sean Black

subject: [WikiEN-l] In hospital

body:
On 2/9/07, Parker Peters <parkerpeters1002 at gmail.com> wrote:
> In hospital. Only get a couple minutes, but I may be able to get a laptop or
> something later if they will allow it.
>
> There's a trucking company from arkansas named C Bean that needs to be run
> out of business. Their trucker actually tried to tell the cop it was my
> fault when he merged into the left most lane, crushing my car between his
> trailer and the concrete barrier. I'm just lucky it was rush hour traffic
> and we were moving 25 rather than 60.
>
> wife says i'm going to have a 'really sexy scar pattern' when i recover.

... what?


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] - category clutter on biographical articles

body:
On 2/13/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Please demonstrate some harm caused by having "excessive" categories
> on an article. Assume that all the categories are correctly used: the
> article belongs to the category, and none of the categories are
> mutually redundant.
>
> Steve

View [[George H. W. Bush]] in the classic skin but that is rather an
exceptional example.

--
geni


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Nick Jenkins

subject: [Wikitech-l] WYSIWYG (or WYSIWYM or WYSIWYM) status?

body:
> What you can do is to run some experiments on the existing dump.
> How many cases are there where ''''' is hard to resolve?  Did
> anybody count?
>
> It is of course possible to write articles with unbalanced
> apostrophes.  If I write '''hey'' it will render as '<i>hey</i>,
> and that's also how a conversion program should leave it. How many
> such user mistakes are there in the current dump?

I can't answer that question for a current dump, but I can answer it
for a dump of EN that's about 15 months old (this was done as part of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wiki_Syntax ).

The formats and figures are shown below, and I've added examples to
show a single line that would cause it to be logged (assuming the rest
of the wikitext in that article is well-formed). Basically they're all
about _balance_ - if you open a bit of paired syntax, you should close
it. Some syntaxes must be closed on the same line (e.g. ''' ), and some
must be closed in the same article (e.g. {| ).

Note however that these figures are from only a few months after a
previous run (I think - it *was* a while ago), so the figures for
now I'm guestimating would be between 2 and 4 times higher - because
it's been so long since it was last done, and because there
are probably more contributions now, and "wikitext format errors
introduced" is probably directly proportional to the number of
contributions.

----------------------------------------------
mysql> select format, count(*) as count from malformed_page group by format order by count desc;
+-------------------------+-------+
| format                  | count |
+-------------------------+-------+
| ''                      |  7161 | example: this is a ''test
| '''                     |  1248 | example: this is a '''test
| '' and '''              |  1155 | example: this is a '''test''
| ''' and ''              |  1091 | example: this is a ''test'''
| ]                       |   587 | example: this is a] test
| [ and ]]                |   507 | example: this is a [test]]
| ]]                      |   417 | example: this is a test]]
| [[                      |   413 | example: this is a [[test
| [                       |   372 | example: this is [a test
| [[ and ]                |   347 | example: this is a [[test]
| {|                      |   261 | example: {|  (and never close it)
| |}                      |   238 | example: |}  (and never open it)
| -->                     |    67 | example: <!-- blah --> -->
| <div>                   |    60 | example: <div> <div> blah </div>
| {{                      |    46 | example: {{ {{delete}}
| <!--                    |    43 | example: <!-- <!-- blah -->
| </div>                  |    39 | example: <div> blah </div> </div>
| }}                      |    34 | example: {{delete}} }}
| ]] and [[               |    24 | example: this is a ]]test[[
| == and ===              |    20 | example: ==heading===
| ] and [                 |    14 | example: this is a ]test[
| [[image:                |    11 | example: [[image: [[image:test.gif]]
| === and ==              |     8 | example: ===heading==
| '' and [[               |     5 | example: this ''is a [[test
| [ and ''                |     5 | example: this [is a ''test
| '' and ]]               |     5 | example: this ''is a]] test
| <code>                  |     5 | example: <code> <code> for i=1 </code>
| </pre>                  |     4 | example: <pre> for i=1 </pre> </pre>
| </nowiki>               |     4 | example: <nowiki> for i=1 </nowiki> </nowiki>
| '' and ]                |     3 | etc ....
| ]] and '''              |     3 |
| ]] and ''               |     3 |
| ] and ''                |     2 |
| </math>                 |     2 |
| [[ and ''               |     2 |
| '' and [[ and ]         |     2 |
| </code>                 |     2 |
| === and ====            |     2 |
| '' and ''' and ]        |     2 |
| [ and '''               |     1 |
| ]] and '' and '''       |     1 |
| [[ and ] and [          |     1 |
| [ and ]] and ''         |     1 |
| ''' and [[              |     1 |
| <math>                  |     1 |
| ==== and ===            |     1 |
| ]] and [[ and ''        |     1 |
| ] and [ and ''          |     1 |
| ''' and '' and ]]       |     1 |
| ''' and '' and [[ and [ |     1 |
| ''' and ]]              |     1 |
| ]] and ] and ''' and '' |     1 |
| [ and '' and '''        |     1 |
+-------------------------+-------+
53 rows in set (0.57 sec)

mysql>
----------------------------------------------

Note: ''''' was treated as ''' + '' (rather than as a separate category), so
it will be mixed in with the above figures for ''' and ''.

> Perhaps somebody
> is already running a robot to find and fix such errors?

Not that I'm aware of - humans were better at it anyway, because some of the above
were false positives (e.g. some math formulas), and the ''' and '' & ''' and '' tests
had lots of false positives. If a robot went around blindly automatically fixing
these, it'd be banned for vandalism. However, some automated approach could be good,
as it's an ongoing problem with no real closure (like sorting the mail), so people
eventually have enough of doing it (as I did), and move onto other stuff.

All the best,
Nick.


from_name: Steve

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] [Foundation-l] How to edit wikipedia when stupid
	mods block all Thai ip addresses

body:
It would stand up very poorly, as its an international issue and I'm
not sure they made an expressed guarantee to you.

Look, just be patient, get ahold of people who can effectively deal
with your problem and keep a cool head

Or keep blowing up at the list. Eventually we'll get bored.

-S

On 2/13/07, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> Mark Williamson wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >[[WP:NPA]] -- you're not going to get anyone's sympathy nor their
> >attention if you call people stupid.
> >[[WP:OWN]] -- you don't own any of the articles you wrote. You gave up
> >all rights to the text when you submitted them to Wikipedia. They will
> >not be deleted.
> >
> >
> >
> I would like to see how that would stand up in a court if wikipedia is
> denying me access without a valid reason (not a vandal etc).
>
> Waerth
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


list: commons-l

from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Commons-l] Mayflower: Wikimedia Commons media search

body:
On 2/13/07, Tangotango <tangotango at wikignome.net> wrote:
> Just to recap, this tool allows full-text searching of the Commons
> database, returning a gallery-based results page, much like Google
> Images and similar services. The main goal was to make a user-
> friendly interface, so that even non-Wikimedians can take advantage
> of it.

Fantastic. It would probably be useful to include the image page
wikitext in the result.. even if it lowered the density of the
results.

"Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Tangotango. Your comments and suggestions are welcome."

should have a "Images and other content are copyright their respective
owners" or the like. :)


body:
I would be very, very unhappy and probably rant angrily at the list.
But if I wanted true sympathy from others for my cause, that would not
be very effective.

-S

ps: Or I would find a proxy server?

On 2/13/07, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> Thanks for your reaction, I would like to know how you would react if
> you were editting for years and this is happening every 2 or 3 weeks.
> And nobody reacts anymore. This whole pre-emptive blocking has blocked
> most of the Thai IP's on nl.wikipedia without there being any vandalism
> from those ip's.
>
> Waerth
>
>
> >It would stand up very poorly, as its an international issue and I'm
> >not sure they made an expressed guarantee to you.
> >
> >Look, just be patient, get ahold of people who can effectively deal
> >with your problem and keep a cool head
> >
> >Or keep blowing up at the list. Eventually we'll get bored.
> >
> >-S
> >
> >On 2/13/07, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Mark Williamson wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Hi,
> >>>
> >>>[[WP:NPA]] -- you're not going to get anyone's sympathy nor their
> >>>attention if you call people stupid.
> >>>[[WP:OWN]] -- you don't own any of the articles you wrote. You gave up
> >>>all rights to the text when you submitted them to Wikipedia. They will
> >>>not be deleted.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>I would like to see how that would stand up in a court if wikipedia is
> >>denying me access without a valid reason (not a vandal etc).
> >>
> >>Waerth
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Wikipedia-l mailing list
> >>Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Wikipedia-l mailing list
> >Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Sanger and CZ

body:
Glen S wrote:

>Tell me, have any of you read this:
>http://daveydweeb.com/2007/02/07/citizendium-isnt-interested-in-your-opinion/
>
>I was shocked when I read it... that is, until I read Sanger's response
>beneath it... then I was absolutely dumbfounded. With a guy with that
>attitude at the helm, I'm expecting the CZ project to fizzle out VERY
>quicky.
>
ROTFL

Ec


from_name: Nojhan

subject: [Foundation-l] structure

body:
Le Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:49:24 +0100, Husky a ?crit:
> AFAIK, every Foundation 'announcement' is posted on
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Current_events
>
> So if anyone just wants to read the announcements they could simply go to
> that page and read it. Maybe a RSS feed of the 'current events' would make
> that a little more easy, but i don't know if that's technically possible in
> Mediawiki.

These messages could be sent to the announce ML (sorry I dont know the
exact address, but its gmane.org.wikimedia.announce on usenet), where the
wikizine is sent.

--
Nojhan


subject: [Foundation-l] structure


from_name: Angela

body:
On 2/11/07, Evan Prodromou <evan at prodromou.name> wrote:
> This is distressing news. Does this mean that we're not doing Wikiwyg?
>
>         http://www.wikiwyg.net/
>
> Are Wikia and SocialText still working on that project?

We are still working on it. We launched the first stage today, which
is Wikiwyg editing for new pages. You can try it out at
http://entertainment.wikia.com/index.php?title=Create_Opinion

We've not yet solved the problem of converting back and forward, so,
for now, Wikiwyg is only there when you start a new page. When you
save it, you get only wikitext.

Angela

--
Angela Beesley
Wikia.com


from_name: John Vandenberg

subject:
[WikiEN-l] expunging copyright violations (Was: Re: Admin
	burnout)

body:
On 2/13/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> John Vandenberg wrote:
>
> >However, the issue of access to copyvios increases with the number of
> >admins.  In my opinion this isnt solved with less admins, but by
> >expunging copyvios completely or further restricting access to them.
> >In this, I am more thinking about copies of articles from other
> >encyclopedias, as opposed to the snippets taken from a website.  These
> >copyvios are of limited usefulness to admins after a few days and
> >should be inaccessible, both in the article history and the deletion
> >log; instead a boilerplate page should alert the reader that the
> >version they have requested is a copyvio and provide the details, such
> >as source, contributors name, etc.  All access to these copyright
> >violations after it has been removed should be restricted to case by
> >case needs.
> >
> Some broad access to these copyvios may still be needed for admns.
> Putting "COPYVIO" in big letters across its face could make it unusable
> except for checking out possible copyvios.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be surprised if an overprint was sufficient
to bypass the copyright laws.  Also, some copyright holders explicitly
state that overprinting is not permitted.

> Some popular pictures may
> very well keep being uploaded by other users who are unaware of the
> previous determination.

I'm not familiar with how image copyvios are tackled.  For repeated
attempts to upload the same image, wouldn't the URL of the source
image be sufficient, maybe with some keywords to assist searching?

With regard to WP:OVER and WP:RFO, it already does cover copyright,
but only on the advice of the lawyers, and all very hush-hush (for
good reason in the cases of personal and libellous information).  I'm
guessing that amounts to requests under OCILLA (and similar) only.
Are copyvios that are found by volunteers also being expunged?

--
John


subject: [Foundation-l] structure

body:
Le Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:49:24 +0100, Husky a ?crit:
> So if anyone just wants to read the announcements they could simply go to
> that page and read it. Maybe a RSS feed of the 'current events' would make
> that a little more easy, but i don't know if that's technically possible in
> Mediawiki.

BTW, you can subscribe to the feeds of the history page :
http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Current_events&action=history&feed=atom

--
Nojhan


subject: [Foundation-l] structure


body:
Can we end this feud?

What is the state of things? "Too bad so sad" or is there a way to
appeal this problem?

-S

On 2/13/07, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> This is about the 4th or 5th time in a year that this is happening so
> may I be tat pissed of. and in all those times I can only remember you
> as the least co-operative of all and the most aggressive.
>
> Waerth


subject: [WikiEN-l] LA Times reporter interviewing users

body:
On 2/13/07, Gary Kirk <gary.kirk at gmail.com> wrote:
> A new Wikipedian (SPA as-yet but meh) who is a reporter has been
> asking users about their experience of updating articles with the
> latest information about subjects, specifically the recent death of
> Anna Nicole Smith and how the article was managed by Wikipedians - the
> usual reverting (WP:BLP, {{fact}}) to vandalism afterwards. Says he
> thinks it would make an interesting article (for his paper :)).
>
> I don't know what the users he's contacted have said, but I thought he
> could be pointed to, for example, WP:BLP and its notice board, and how
> we dealt with [[Kenneth Lay]]'s death, which journalists before I
> recall were impressed with.

One recent death that is still quite difficult to find online news of
is [[Gareth Roberts (scientist)]].  User 163.1.7.205 (mostly a SPA)
updated the article on 15:37, 6 February 2007, and I added a source at
16:00, 6 February 2007.

--
John


from_name: Mark Williamson

body:
Yes, the WP:OWN part does :-)

Mark

On 13/02/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> David Gerard schreef:
> > On 13/02/07, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Mark Williamson wrote:
> >>
> >
> >
> >>> [[WP:NPA]] -- you're not going to get anyone's sympathy nor their
> >>> attention if you call people stupid.
> >>> [[WP:OWN]] -- you don't own any of the articles you wrote. You gave up
> >>> all rights to the text when you submitted them to Wikipedia. They will
> >>> not be deleted.
> >>>
> >
> >
> >> I would like to see how that would stand up in a court if wikipedia is
> >> denying me access without a valid reason (not a vandal etc).
> >>
> >
> >
> > Sue and see if the GFDL holds up in court.
> >
> >
> > - d.
> Hoi,
> This has nothing to do with the GFDL. You know that.
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

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


from_name: Christof Sperl

body:
I haven't got such an e-mail, but if that user really wants to use the mail
addresses from this list in any not-so-nice ways I suppose there is noone
able to stop him one he has the address really.

On 13/02/07, Gary Kirk <gary.kirk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I know that, and I don't have a problem with that, but would suggest
> the user not go about his enquiries in this way.
>
> On 2/13/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) <nsle.wikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I can confirm that I did. To be fair, the archive is available publicly,
> so
> > by contributing to this you're letting everyone know your email address.
> >
> > On 13/02/07, Gary Kirk <gary.kirk at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Did anyone else receive an email recently with the subject
> > > ''Requesting to make comments for e-learning wiki''? I did, from a
> > > student in Thailand, and I found it rather rude. Surely people are not
> > > supposed to randomly grab addresses from mailing lists they subscribe
> > > to?
> > > --
> > > Gary Kirk
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Gary Kirk
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Give me a link, I'll stir shit up for you.

-S

On 2/13/07, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
>
> >On 13/02/07, Steve <subsume at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Can we end this feud?
> >>What is the state of things? "Too bad so sad" or is there a way to
> >>appeal this problem?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >en:wp has the ability to block only for IP users, not for logged-in
> >users. I'd be surprised if nl:wp lacks this.
> >
> >i.e., it needs to be taken up with nl:wp. No-one here who isn't an
> >nl:wp admin can do anything.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> nl-wikipedia has this feature as well. It is just that the mod who is
> autoblocking all open proxies (the vast majority of Thai ISP's) is NOT
> blocking with this switched on, he is hardblocking. He has been asked
> many times not to do this also in Dutch villagepump. But he still does
> it. Also having to ask this xx's of times in a short space is really
> getting on my nerves. Everytime it is promised the mod will change his
> ways everytime he doesn't.
>
> Waerth
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Husky

subject: [Foundation-l] structure

body:
AFAIK, every Foundation 'announcement' is posted on
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Current_events

So if anyone just wants to read the announcements they could simply go to
that page and read it. Maybe a RSS feed of the 'current events' would make
that a little more easy, but i don't know if that's technically possible in
Mediawiki.

-- Hay Kranen / [[User:Husky]]

On 2/13/07, Guillaume Paumier <guillom.pom at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/13/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com > wrote:
> >
> > > The discussions on this mailing list are very interesting, but over
> 200
> > > emails about one single subject is a *very very* lot. Lots of people
> are
> > > fleeing from this list due to the number of emails (not everybody has
> > gmail;
> > > some people still get all email through pop). I would like to suggest
> > two
> > > possible solutions:
> >
> > Just switch to the daily digest, that way you only get 1 email a day.
>
>
> The problem isn't the number of emails you get, but the [[signal-to-noise
> ratio]] of this list. Getting one daily digest doesn't make it easier to
> find the relevant emails among all the sterile ? discussions ?.
>
> --
> Guillaume Paumier
> [[m:User:guillom]]
> http://www.wikimedia.org
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] structure


from_name: Joshua Brady

subject: [WikiEN-l] In hospital

body:
On 2/13/07, ? Firefoxman <enwpmail at gmail.com> wrote:
> Why in the world did the mods let this through?

Why did you have to reopen this?

- snip -

> -Firefoxman

- Josh


from_name: Cool Cat

body:
We do have different opinions on what the category system should be used for
and thats the root of the problem. Wikipedia is based on consensus and there
is no process for consensus aside from cfd. Unlike articles, the creation of
categories should be based on a consensus not someones belief system.

Today, any random newbie can invent his/her categorization scheme. We are
categorizing people by their appetite by nationality today
([[Category:Vegetarians by nationality]]). Someone not being tagged by a
category as a vegetarian does not make them a carnivore. Or how about
[[Category:Terrorists by nationality]]? I could list more problematic
examples.

    - Cool Cat

On 2/13/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> Cool Cat wrote:
> > We have a junk-load of categories which only increase in number. Not
> doing
> > anything is obviously not working. Existing system is incapable of
> handling
> > it.
>
> Frankly, I don't see what's "not working" about the current approach.
> There are a heck of a lot of categories, some of them highly specific,
> but it remains to be proven to me how this is actually a _problem_.
>
> It may be that we have different opinions on what the category system
> should be used for. But real-world usage has developed to the state it
> is today through a large-scale broad-based process of mass editing, and
> I suspect an attempt to forcibly wrench it into a different mold is
> likely to run into a lot of trouble as a result.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On 2/13/07, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> Mark Williamson wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >[[WP:NPA]] -- you're not going to get anyone's sympathy nor their
> >attention if you call people stupid.
> >[[WP:OWN]] -- you don't own any of the articles you wrote. You gave up
> >all rights to the text when you submitted them to Wikipedia. They will
> >not be deleted.
> >
> >
> >
> I would like to see how that would stand up in a court if wikipedia is
> denying me access without a valid reason (not a vandal etc).

Quite well, show me where you have a "right" to use a free service.
Try contacting your ISP abuse department and asking them to be more
proactive on handling abuse.

> Waerth

- Josh


body:
On 2/13/07, Joshua Brady <somitho at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Try contacting your ISP abuse department and asking them to be more
> proactive on handling abuse.

I'm sure the ISPs will respond diligently by monitoring all pedias for
vandalism, round the clock.


body:
On 2/13/07, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> All right, if you're going to use acronyms, please create the relevant
> article.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPA

done.

--
John


subject: [Wikitech-l] Page protection

body:
> > Hoi,
> > MediaWiki is a versatile tool. Gartner wrote at some stage: "Knowledge
> > management became affordable thanks to the MediaWiki boys". The point
> > being, yes it is a wiki engine at its core, it is however used in many
> > settings. There have been several requests for per-page access
> > permissions. There have been implementations of this. They just did not
> > make it into the MediaWiki SVN. This is a shame because as a consequence
> > you have a fork. Forking is really unproductive. With some regularity
> > the same issue raises its ugly head again; often resulting in a new fork.
> > Thanks,
> >     GerardM
>
> If someone was able to implement this as an extension, without
> modifying core code, then they might have a better chance of making it
> into SVN.

If such a thing existed, under a suitable license (etc etc), as an
_extension_ only, then I for one would be happy to check it in to SVN.

Others may then decide to delete it (probably on the grounds that "it was
against user freedoms") ... and no doubt the irony inherent in restricting
what was in MediaWiki's extension SVN, so as to "increase freedoms" would
be completely lost of such people. Interventionist nanny-state fascists! :-)

Part of freedom is the freedom to decide for yourself what you want to
happen on your systems. For example, Linux lets me encrypt my private
personal data so that others cannot access it.
Is this "against user freedoms"? If not, why should wikis be different?

> Brion has strongly implied that in the past.  That's what WONTFIX
> means: not that we aren't willing to code it, but that we aren't even
> willing to accept it.  But it's his decision, of course.

An unequivocal answer to this would be good, because it's a recurring
question which isn't going away.

Brion, would you refuse to allow a patch for per-page ACLs on political
(rather than technical) reasons? I.e. if the code was clean, it was off by
default, it had little or no overhead if you weren't using it, most of it
was in an extension, with only limited changes to the core where required,
the license was acceptable, it was used at a number of sites, it fulfilled
a user need / desire, there didn't seem to be any security problems, the
patch's developers were communicate and responsive, it used the same
coding style as other code, was well-commented and documented, etc etc
- Would you revert such a patch: Yes or No?

All the best,
Nick.


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

body:
"Cool Cat" wrote

> Especially if a person does not understands the spirit of NPOV, we end up
> having categories with not very objective titles and a subjective inclusion
> criteria.

Well, categories should be verifiable. If not verifiable, the category itself is at fault, I think. [[Category:Guitarists influenced by Jimi Hendrix]] we can do without.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin burnout

body:
Rich Holton wrote:
<snip>
> You do realize that for much of Wikipedia's history, the route to being
> an admin was much less strict than we have now. Despite this, and
> despite the fact that there are relatively very few cases of people
> being "de-adminned", cases of rogue admins doing huge damage are either
> non-existent or very rare, depending on what you consider "huge damage".
>

So, you know the history of Oversight then?

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20070213/8f739bee/attachment.pgp


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Exporting sections of pages

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

Claudi Meneghin wrote:
> Hi all,
> is there a way to export section of articles by the 'special:export' feature, please?

Nope, sorry. Get the page and extract the bits you want.

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFF0jdjwRnhpk1wk44RAsL5AJ0RT+NnaKoZ0yNu67s1Td2ybCC7iACfSMsv
yZ8jlO6wwWnBqPE5M0AS1EQ=
=VJcY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [Wikitech-l] Page protection

body:
> > .... a patch for per-page ACLs ....
> > - Would you revert such a patch: Yes or No?
>
> [...snip...]
>
> So no, I would not accept such a "patch". Ongoing work to move in that
> direction, _maybe_ _possibly_. But some big honkin "patch" would be
> inherently useless crap.

Fair enough, and good answer!

So, if you want such a thing, use as-small-as-possible incremental updates,
with lots of visibility and prior announcement and opportunity for review,
and don't introduce dead code / functionality that isn't being used. Plus
the other standard stuff listed before (clean code, etc etc) - i.e. don't
give any technical reason to say no.

And remember, nobody said it would be easy! ;-)

All the best,
Nick.


body:
On 2/13/07, Steve <subsume at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/13/07, Joshua Brady <somitho at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Try contacting your ISP abuse department and asking them to be more
> > proactive on handling abuse.
>
> I'm sure the ISPs will respond diligently by monitoring all pedias for
> vandalism, round the clock.

Steve,

No, but contacting an abuse department usually helps. If you care to
point out a specific incident, I can look into it and contact the
correct people.

- Josh


from_name: Kirill Lokshin

body:
On 2/13/07, Cool Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail.com> wrote:
> You should be seeking consensus. Waiting a day or week to determine the best
> way to categorize will save you and everyone else significant amount of
> time. Are you 100% certain that the mathematics categories are the most
> effective to navigate the articles?
>
> Categorization should not be rushed. Approval is not the case. See how stub
> template proposals are handled at wikiproject:stubs

Discussion and consensus is not the same thing as bureaucracy and red
tape.  It's perfectly possible -- preferable, even! -- to come to a
consensus decision on how something (e.g. categories) should be
structured without the need to go through umpteen formal proposals,
nominations, processes, listings, reviews, and so forth.

Kirill


subject: [Foundation-l] structure

body:
Never seen that option before, but exactly what i was searching for! Maybe
we could add a little 'RSS' icon (like this one:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Feed-icon.svg) to that page with a
link to the URL you mentioned? Unfortunately i don't have editing rights on
WMF.org, so this has to be done by someone else.

-- Hay Kranen / [[User:Husky]]

On 2/13/07, Nojhan <nojhan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Le Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:49:24 +0100, Husky a ?crit:
> > So if anyone just wants to read the announcements they could simply go
> to
> > that page and read it. Maybe a RSS feed of the 'current events' would
> make
> > that a little more easy, but i don't know if that's technically possible
> in
> > Mediawiki.
>
> BTW, you can subscribe to the feeds of the history page :
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Current_events&action=history&feed=atom
>
> --
> Nojhan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] structure


body:
On 2/13/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Joshua Brady schreef:
> > On 2/13/07, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Mark Williamson wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> [[WP:NPA]] -- you're not going to get anyone's sympathy nor their
> >>> attention if you call people stupid.
> >>> [[WP:OWN]] -- you don't own any of the articles you wrote. You gave up
> >>> all rights to the text when you submitted them to Wikipedia. They will
> >>> not be deleted.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> I would like to see how that would stand up in a court if wikipedia is
> >> denying me access without a valid reason (not a vandal etc).
> >>
> >
> > Quite well, show me where you have a "right" to use a free service.
> > Try contacting your ISP abuse department and asking them to be more
> > proactive on handling abuse.
> >
> >
> >> Waerth
> >>
> >
> > - Josh
> Hoi,
> When an organisation can discriminate without justification, it takes a
> risk that it will get its actions challenged in court. This is very much
> the American way. Walter's well rehersed argument is that this is not a
> new situation at all. This is indeed a story that sadly does not go away.
>
> You go to an ISP when you are abused from someone who hides behind that
> ISP. Walter does not suffer in that way; it is the ISP itself that could
> do better.
>
> Please understand the situation a little bit better before you say the
> things that you do. I do not mind to explain things, but it is rather
> obvious.

Gerard,

It of course takes a risk, but it has no legal basis. No one has an
absolute right to access a particular site. It doesn't matter if the
site is google, wikipedia, or ilovebigfurrykittens. This is not the
"American" way, it is the way of people internationally. If someone
cares to give me timestamps, and the IP who continues to abuse; I will
give the abuse department a call myself to see if they can look into
it.

I'm quite aware of the situation in question, and it is very
unfortunate but wikilawyering isn't the way to go about it. Again I
offer the solution, contact the ISP and let them know that a user is
causing continued abuse, offer proof, and inform them if they fail to
address the issue they will be denied access to xx-wikipedia (I am
assuming this relates to nl-wikipedia so replace the xx with the
proper language code). It will help if users from the ISP put pressure
on the abuse department or contact; but shouldn't be needed.

> Thanks,
>     GerardM

- Josh


from_name: Gary Kirk

body:
I like this idea too. It would force me to actually do some stuff
there, and be nice to receive :)

On 2/13/07, Aphaia <aphaia at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/13/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/02/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Would there be any objection to setting up a daily-image-l mailing
> > > list akin to English Wikipedia's daily-article-l, but for featured
> > > pictures from Commons?
> > > Of course, for bandwidth reasons, we would only link to the image,
> > > instead of emailing it to each subscriber :) with brief multilingual
> > > labels and copyright credit.
> >
> >
> > Sounds great to me!
> Me too.
> Go, Commons go!
> --
> KIZU Naoko
>   Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
>   * habent enim emolumentum in labore suo *
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Gary Kirk


body:
Hmm.. at first I thought he was mouthing off but I think I see his point.

On 2/13/07, Joshua Brady <somitho at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/13/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Joshua Brady schreef:
> > > On 2/13/07, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Mark Williamson wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> [[WP:NPA]] -- you're not going to get anyone's sympathy nor their
> > >>> attention if you call people stupid.
> > >>> [[WP:OWN]] -- you don't own any of the articles you wrote. You gave up
> > >>> all rights to the text when you submitted them to Wikipedia. They will
> > >>> not be deleted.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> I would like to see how that would stand up in a court if wikipedia is
> > >> denying me access without a valid reason (not a vandal etc).
> > >>
> > >
> > > Quite well, show me where you have a "right" to use a free service.
> > > Try contacting your ISP abuse department and asking them to be more
> > > proactive on handling abuse.
> > >
> > >
> > >> Waerth
> > >>
> > >
> > > - Josh
> > Hoi,
> > When an organisation can discriminate without justification, it takes a
> > risk that it will get its actions challenged in court. This is very much
> > the American way. Walter's well rehersed argument is that this is not a
> > new situation at all. This is indeed a story that sadly does not go away.
> >
> > You go to an ISP when you are abused from someone who hides behind that
> > ISP. Walter does not suffer in that way; it is the ISP itself that could
> > do better.
> >
> > Please understand the situation a little bit better before you say the
> > things that you do. I do not mind to explain things, but it is rather
> > obvious.
>
> Gerard,
>
> It of course takes a risk, but it has no legal basis. No one has an
> absolute right to access a particular site. It doesn't matter if the
> site is google, wikipedia, or ilovebigfurrykittens. This is not the
> "American" way, it is the way of people internationally. If someone
> cares to give me timestamps, and the IP who continues to abuse; I will
> give the abuse department a call myself to see if they can look into
> it.
>
> I'm quite aware of the situation in question, and it is very
> unfortunate but wikilawyering isn't the way to go about it. Again I
> offer the solution, contact the ISP and let them know that a user is
> causing continued abuse, offer proof, and inform them if they fail to
> address the issue they will be denied access to xx-wikipedia (I am
> assuming this relates to nl-wikipedia so replace the xx with the
> proper language code). It will help if users from the ISP put pressure
> on the abuse department or contact; but shouldn't be needed.
>
> > Thanks,
> >     GerardM
>
> - Josh
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Luna

subject: [Foundation-l] Legal disclaimer edit?

body:
Last week, somebody requested an edit at the legal disclaimer page;
discussion suggested this should be run past the foundation. Prior thread on
wikien-l got no replies, so seeing if we can't get somebody's attention on
here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Legal_disclaimer#Edit_Request_.22articles_-.3E_articles_and_resources.22_.28applies_to_all_disclaimers.2C_not_just_legal_disclaimer.29

Thanks in advance for any replies,
-Luna


subject: [Foundation-l] Legal disclaimer edit?


from_name: Rich Holton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admins and elitism

body:
Given the recent discussions on this list, and the continuing increase
in de-facto requirements for new admins, I have to wonder if we are not
now well on the way to the creation of an elite class on Wikipedia.

It appears to me that the vocal representatives of the current crop of
admins (meaning those who have become admins within the last year or so)
  have left far behind the idea that being an admin is "no big deal".
They see being an admin as a big deal, and want things to remain that way.

As I understand things, these admins view themselves as the
indispensable shield between Wikipedia and the world, which is full of
devious and persistent vandals. Without them (the admins), Wikipedia
would fail utterly. Essentially, they carry the weight of the survival
of Wikipedia on their shoulders.

Each new admin, having just gone through a "rigorous" application and
approval process, has essentially been selected for taking this sort of
view. And each new admin has every good reason for maintaining or
increasing the requirements for successive admins. In this respect, it
becomes very like the process of hazing found in many clubs and
exclusive organizations). This trend toward ever more "rigorous"
requirements has led to cases of hazing on some US university campuses
that were so severe the "applicant" died as a result.

Of course, the admins point to the very real challenges that vandals
pose as the reason for the rigor of the application process. They reject
any proposal that might place Wikipedia is peril.

Perhaps they're right. I'm certain that they truly want what it best for
Wikipedia.

But what I don't see is any real desire for a change in this trend
toward ever more rigorous requirements for becoming an admin. What I
don't see is any concern for the inherent conflict between the mere
existence of admins and the wiki principles that are the real reason for
the success of Wikipedia. I don't see any comprehension of the
possibility that the elitism of admins is the cause of some of the
vandalism. What I don't see is recognition that there is a problem worth
working on.

Perhaps the solution will require a complete re-thinking of how "special
rights" are allocated on Wikipedia, or even a complete re-thinking of
how vandalism is handled. But unless those involved are willing to
perceive the problem, and willing to engage the problem, nothing will
happen towards solving the problem.

-Rich Holton
(user:Rholton)


body:
I guess I am taking things for granted too fast... Any recent US president
has way too many categories. They are merely the example symptoms of the
problem.

Getting rid of some of these excess categories is something hard to do. Of
course this isn't a battle, but people are often emotionally motivated on a
number of topics and they sometimes create categories for that end.
Especially if a person does not understands the spirit of NPOV, we end up
having categories with not very objective titles and a subjective inclusion
criteria.

An average cfd discussions get very little attention unless it is on a
controversial issue. In your average cfd on a potentially controversial
issue, people tend to vote based on their belief system and not based on
stuff like usefulness/objectivity/subjectivity of the  inclusion criteria of
the category in question. For example, although a word to avoid,
[[Category:Terrorists by nationality]] has been around for quite sometime.

   - Cool Cat

On 2/13/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/11/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > The general principle of avoiding excessive categories is sound.  The
> > art is in getting cleaning up the excesses without upsetting a lot of
> > people, and causing a lot of flame wars.  Patience can be your friend.
>
> Please demonstrate some harm caused by having "excessive" categories
> on an article. Assume that all the categories are correctly used: the
> article belongs to the category, and none of the categories are
> mutually redundant.
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
I'd like to add that this is a developing problem.
   - Cool Cat

On 2/13/07, Cool Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I guess I am taking things for granted too fast... Any recent US president
> has way too many categories. They are merely the example symptoms of the
> problem.
>
> Getting rid of some of these excess categories is something hard to do. Of
> course this isn't a battle, but people are often emotionally motivated on a
> number of topics and they sometimes create categories for that end.
> Especially if a person does not understands the spirit of NPOV, we end up
> having categories with not very objective titles and a subjective inclusion
> criteria.
>
> An average cfd discussions get very little attention unless it is on a
> controversial issue. In your average cfd on a potentially controversial
> issue, people tend to vote based on their belief system and not based on
> stuff like usefulness/objectivity/subjectivity of the  inclusion criteriaof the category in question. For example, although a word to avoid,
> [[Category:Terrorists by nationality]] has been around for quite sometime.
>
>    - Cool Cat
>
> On 2/13/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/11/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > > The general principle of avoiding excessive categories is sound.  The
> > > art is in getting cleaning up the excesses without upsetting a lot of
> > > people, and causing a lot of flame wars.  Patience can be your friend.
> >
> > Please demonstrate some harm caused by having "excessive" categories
> > on an article. Assume that all the categories are correctly used: the
> > article belongs to the category, and none of the categories are
> > mutually redundant.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>


body:
I wasn't aware their government was broken, at least not more than
that of the average democratic republic.

Mark

On 13/02/07, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/13/07, David Monniaux <David.Monniaux at free.fr> wrote:
>
> > You can't imagine seriously that Walter, an average non-Thai citizen,
> > would have any influence on the Thai government, which, to top it, is
> > not exactly democratic? Since this is unrealistic, what you're doing is
> > just inflammatory irony, and it does not help.
>
> In 2004, I fixed the South Korean government (in a collaborative
> effort), while I was not even living there. There is no reason not to
> at least try it.
>
> Mathias
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

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


from_name: Flame Viper

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin Elitism

body:
I recently was engaged in an encounter with a particularly troublesome admin. He blocked me and when I attempted to contact him through e-mail, he made ad hominem personal attacks and generally condescended to me. Now I can assure you this is the only time an admin has ever personally attacked me, but I have repeatedly encountered the seemingly glaring obviousness that is admin elitism.

Wikipedia editors, or regular users, usually create and edit articles, sometimes reverting vandalism or dealing with formal Wikipedia business. And once an editor has performed a large enough amount of good deeds, they can be nominated for administrator. An RfA is a harsh process which yields few admins, and this would seem to make them an exclusive group (which they are indeed). Many people (or at least me) seem to regard adminship as a sort of trophy rather than advanced tools. And it would be intuitive to think that. On almost all websites, being made a moderator (or other "elevated user right status") is a gesture of great respect, trust, and exclusivity. This is because moderators are the "high lords" of the website, much like mayors or representatives.
So why shouldn't adminship be a trophy?

---------------------------------
It's here! Your new message!
Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.


from_name: David Gerard

subject:
[Foundation-l] How to edit wikipedia when stupid mods block all
	Thai ip addresses

body:
On 13/02/07, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:

> I am getting extremely impatient with RonaldB he seems to have a fetish
> for blocking Thai IP addresses on the Dutch wikipedia and he doesn't
> answerd emails send to him. I cannot even edit when I am logged in, not
> from a friends computer which uses a different provider. Is it the
> wikimedia foundations goal to block me??

Yes, every attempt at blocking a Thai IP is a PERSONAL AFFRONT to you.
This is listed in the Foundation's 501(c)(3) filing with the IRS. HTH!

- d.


body:
On 2/13/07, Cool Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail.com> wrote:
> You are missing the point and issue. Are you suggesting that we should
> continue the way we are doing things right now?

Um, yes.

> Not a bad argument at all. So if your idea breaks at a point we will end up
> with hundreds of improperly tagged math related articles. We have over
> 1,500,000 articles so we better not screw up in mass categorizing them.
> Cleaning up the mess is very tiresome.

Better is the enemy of good enough.  Keep in mind that readers (you
know, those people we're actually writing the encyclopedia for) are
browsing through categories *right now*.   It's nice, of course, to
take a few months for an extensive discussion of how a particular
category tree should be structured -- WP:MILHIST does this all the
time -- but it's important that this not prevent the creation of a
flawed, but *good enough for the reader* scheme in the interim.

> Rulebooks and experts are not part of my or anyones proposal so far. In fact
> I am not in any way proposing rules or guidelines. What I am proposing is a
> discussion of any new categories.

The vast majority of new categories are "duh, obvious".  For example,
if an editor sees a "Battles involving France" category and a "Battles
involving Germany" category, but no "Battles involving Italy"
category, they really don't need to discuss the issue beforehand in
order to create it; the number of errors you get by simply extending
existing schemes to encompass all countries/states/etc. is so low that
they can be quite neatly handled after the fact.

Massive reorganizations should, generally speaking, be discussed
beforehand; but do people actually undertake them without discussion
in practice?  I haven't really encountered that sort of thing.

Kirill


subject: [WikiEN-l] People, Admins & the WP culture

body:
Marc Riddell wrote:
> [To any & all,
>
> I am doing some thinking about how the WP Community could help Admins who
> are struggling with the work. My goal is to come up with a formal mechanism
> that these Admins can turn to for help and support before they choose to
> simply give up and leave the Community. It could serve as a form of
> intervention before a burnout occurs.
>
> What are your thoughts about this?
>
> Marc Riddell]
>
>                 *************
>
> Hello,
>
> The above is the second of two similar posts I placed on the List.
>
> In the days since the first of this inquiry was posted I have received just
> one posted and one private email voicing any interest in pursuing this
> issue.
>
> Most of the posts on the first ?Admin burnout? thread seemed to reflect a
> genuine recognition and feel that a problem does exist in how the WP
> Community treats its Admins. Some of these posts came from Admins with
> personal experience in this area. But what was, and still is, missing is a
> seeming willingness to do something about it.
>
> I am surprised and disappointed that so little interest seems to exist here
> in helping Admins - who are, first, people. Rather, the focus seems to be on
> following the rules, knowing your place, copyrights, images, being the
> biggest, and countless other technical and administrative issues. There is
> also a lot of talk about how to choose and discipline Admins, but virtually
> nothing on how to keep them. Persons - and their struggles - at the core of
> this community are being discounted and abandoned.
>
> A ?society? is the ?who's who in the zoo? ? a ?culture? is how the people in
> that zoo treat each other.
>
> The social structure within WP is quite clear, and the cultural ethic within
> it appears to be, ?Be bold, take risks, but if you get into trouble you're
> on your own?.
>
> If Wikipedia ultimately fails ? and I sincerely hope it does not ? it will
> not be due to outside influences, but, rather, an indifference to its
> people.
>
> An organization can be held together for a while by paper clips, clear tape
> and patching plaster, but the real bond that holds it together is its
> people.
>
> There is a cancer in the culture.
>
> Marc Riddell
>
>

I don't know the answers, Marc. And I sincerely hope I am not part of
the problem. I do think we expect too much from our admins, especially
given the limited number of active ones we have. I'm not sure that
reducing the number of admins that leave is the answer, though it sure
should be a part of the answer. The reality is, given the nastiness of
the task and the lack of tangible reward, it's probably unavoidable that
many admins will leave or dramatically reduce their activity with time.

In your original post, you talk about a "formal mechanism that these
Admins can turn to for help and support". Perhaps if you were to be a
bit more descriptive with your idea, it might receive more support, or
at least feedback. And, though I'm not certain, it could be that the
word "formal" chased some people away.

I do agree that "there is a cancer in the culture." Perhaps I'm full of
smelly cheese in my ideas about where the cancer lies. But I do want to
figure out a way forward, and I am willing to listen to new ideas.

-Rich
(user:Rholton)


from_name: Luiz Augusto

subject:
[Foundation-l] It is the foundations responsibility .........
	How to edit wikipedia when stupid mods block all Thai ip addresses

references:
<45D1DDB6.7000907@vankalken.net>
	<45D1DFD8.3060200@fourkitchens.com> <45D208CF.8040001@vankalken.net>

body:
200 messages for global copyright issues isn't the same that 200 messages
for local blocking issues...

On 2/13/07, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
>
> It is the foundation who laid this policy on the communities in 2004!
> See Meta. It was a rule placed upon the communities by the foundation so
> if it flukes you cannot all of a sudden place the responsibility with
> the local community.
>
> Waerth.
>
> >The Foundation is deliberately restrained from managing the community
> >and content of Wikimedia projects. This separation exists for many
> >reasons. You should raise this issue with the community of the Dutch
> >Wikipedia.
> >
> >Walter van Kalken wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I am getting extremely impatient with RonaldB he seems to have a fetish
> >>for blocking Thai IP addresses on the Dutch wikipedia and he doesn't
> >>answerd emails send to him. I cannot even edit when I am logged in, not
> >>from a friends computer which uses a different provider. Is it the
> >>wikimedia foundations goal to block me??
> >>
> >>The last two weeks I have found the IP adresses of my provider
> >>constantly blocked, pre-emptively by RonaldB without any sign of
> >>vandalism by those IP adresses. Wikipedia can be editted by anyone? Not
> >>by me!
> >>
> >>Waerth
> >>
>


body:
On 2/13/07, Cool Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail.com> wrote:
> The real people out there want reliable ways of navigating categories. A one
> week discussion propr to mass categorization is a necesary evil IMHO. I do
> not believe it is reasonable to suggest otherwise.

A week-long discussion is unnecessary for the obvious cases, and far
too short for the complex ones.  If people really think that a week is
enough to hash out all the issues with a reasonably large and
convoluted category tree, that may explain why so many things show up
on CFD.  In my experience, the only thing that can be done in a week
is a reasonably straightforward mass renaming/renesting/etc. of a set
of structurally equivalent categories (although even that is pushing
it); actually figuring out, from a chaotic state, how to arrange a
large category scheme generally takes several months.

Kirill


from_name: Jeff Raymond

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admins and elitism

body:
Rich Holton wrote:
> Given the recent discussions on this list, and the continuing increase
> in de-facto requirements for new admins, I have to wonder if we are not
> now well on the way to the creation of an elite class on Wikipedia.
>
> It appears to me that the vocal representatives of the current crop of
> admins (meaning those who have become admins within the last year or so)
>   have left far behind the idea that being an admin is "no big deal".
> They see being an admin as a big deal, and want things to remain that way.

You're not wrong, and I'm of the opinion that we are in a situation where
we have an elite class already.  The problem is twofold:

1) Adminship *is* a big deal, whether we want it to be or not.  We trust
them to do too much, expect a lot of them, and it's very difficult to
remove or sanction an administrator who acts inappropriately.

2) More importantly, adminship is viewed as a reward rather than a
responsibility, thus creating a protector group of admins.  There's one
recently-promoted admin in particular who embodies this concept, but there
are many like him.

> Perhaps the solution will require a complete re-thinking of how "special
> rights" are allocated on Wikipedia, or even a complete re-thinking of
> how vandalism is handled. But unless those involved are willing to
> perceive the problem, and willing to engage the problem, nothing will
> happen towards solving the problem.

It has to, and you're absolutely right.  Judging by the current RfA crop,
it doesn't appear to be changing either - one person I'm very
uncomfortable with but can't figure out why is sailing through, and one
person who really should be given the bit is being opposed for even
sillier reasons than some of the opposes on mine.

The Foundation is unlikely to get involved, and Jimbo really should, but
won't.  I wish there was a better answer.

-Jeff


body:
"Cool Cat" wrote

> This is far more constructive than creation then
> deletion discussion (current process).

Maybe so. But it is much less like the 'wiki way', or 'be bold', and suffers from the general dislike of adding bureaucratic hurdles.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam


subject: [WikiEN-l] In hospital

body:
Please, do what NSLE says and ignore this user's posts. It's not my job to
tell the list admins what to do, but come on - has this user *ever*
contributed anything of value to any list?

On 2/13/07, Sean Black <smblac at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/9/07, Parker Peters <parkerpeters1002 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > In hospital. Only get a couple minutes, but I may be able to get a
> laptop or
> > something later if they will allow it.
> >
> > There's a trucking company from arkansas named C Bean that needs to be
> run
> > out of business. Their trucker actually tried to tell the cop it was my
> > fault when he merged into the left most lane, crushing my car between
> his
> > trailer and the concrete barrier. I'm just lucky it was rush hour
> traffic
> > and we were moving 25 rather than 60.
> >
> > wife says i'm going to have a 'really sexy scar pattern' when i recover.
>
> ... what?
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Gary Kirk


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

body:
On 2/13/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) <nsle.wikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
> Unless they get the addresses from actually READING the messages ;)

It wouldn't be an impossible programming task to parse the gzip'ed
text archives for a whole lot of e-mail address goodness. In fact,
it'd be quite easy.

--Oskar


from_name: Pedro Sanchez

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admins and elitism

body:
On 2/13/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
>
> Rich Holton wrote:
> > Given the recent discussions on this list, and the continuing increase
> > in de-facto requirements for new admins, I have to wonder if we are not
> > now well on the way to the creation of an elite class on Wikipedia.
> >
> > It appears to me that the vocal representatives of the current crop of
> > admins (meaning those who have become admins within the last year or so)
> >   have left far behind the idea that being an admin is "no big deal".
> > They see being an admin as a big deal, and want things to remain that way.
>
> You're not wrong, and I'm of the opinion that we are in a situation where
> we have an elite class already.  The problem is twofold:
>
> 1) Adminship *is* a big deal, whether we want it to be or not.  We trust
> them to do too much, expect a lot of them, and it's very difficult to
> remove or sanction an administrator who acts inappropriately.
>
> 2) More importantly, adminship is viewed as a reward rather than a
> responsibility, thus creating a protector group of admins.  There's one
> recently-promoted admin in particular who embodies this concept, but there
> are many like him.
>
> > Perhaps the solution will require a complete re-thinking of how "special
> > rights" are allocated on Wikipedia, or even a complete re-thinking of
> > how vandalism is handled. But unless those involved are willing to
> > perceive the problem, and willing to engage the problem, nothing will
> > happen towards solving the problem.
>
> It has to, and you're absolutely right.  Judging by the current RfA crop,
> it doesn't appear to be changing either - one person I'm very
> uncomfortable with but can't figure out why is sailing through, and one
> person who really should be given the bit is being opposed for even
> sillier reasons than some of the opposes on mine.
>
> The Foundation is unlikely to get involved, and Jimbo really should, but
> won't.  I wish there was a better answer.
>
> -Jeff
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

I do concurr with jeff this time.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admins and elitism

body:
On 2/13/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think admins play it too safe.
>
> I agree. There are many cases when what the community wants isn't in
> the encyclopaedia's best interest. The concept of consensus seems to
> take precedence over doing what's right. Unfortunately, it's very
> difficult to define when it is appropriate for an admin to just do
> what's right and when they should listen to the community.
>
> I think it boils down to: When does community opinion on a specific
> situation outweigh community opinion on the general policy that is
> relevant to that situation? It's a tricky question to answer.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

More tricky when those policies involve matters outside wikipedia. For
instance, when there're legal issues involved, and the community wants
to do it the other way


from_name: geni

body:
On 2/13/07, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> The issue has been raised over 10 times and everytime it is happening
> again. I want someone to toss some heads finally ot I will want all my
> 1000 + articles I wrote deleted as I cannot edit them anymore.
>

Not something the foundation would generaly get invovled in. En
currently soft blocks the IPs which wouls allow you to continue to
edit. It would be posible for .nl to addopt a simular practice. I've
talked to the .nl people on IRC but I don't know exactly which IPs
need to be delt with.

--
geni


from_name: Marc Riddell

body:
[To any & all,

I am doing some thinking about how the WP Community could help Admins who
are struggling with the work. My goal is to come up with a formal mechanism
that these Admins can turn to for help and support before they choose to
simply give up and leave the Community. It could serve as a form of
intervention before a burnout occurs.

What are your thoughts about this?

Marc Riddell]

                *************

Hello,

The above is the second of two similar posts I placed on the List.

In the days since the first of this inquiry was posted I have received just
one posted and one private email voicing any interest in pursuing this
issue.

Most of the posts on the first ?Admin burnout? thread seemed to reflect a
genuine recognition and feel that a problem does exist in how the WP
Community treats its Admins. Some of these posts came from Admins with
personal experience in this area. But what was, and still is, missing is a
seeming willingness to do something about it.

I am surprised and disappointed that so little interest seems to exist here
in helping Admins - who are, first, people. Rather, the focus seems to be on
following the rules, knowing your place, copyrights, images, being the
biggest, and countless other technical and administrative issues. There is
also a lot of talk about how to choose and discipline Admins, but virtually
nothing on how to keep them. Persons - and their struggles - at the core of
this community are being discounted and abandoned.

A ?society? is the ?who's who in the zoo? ? a ?culture? is how the people in
that zoo treat each other.

The social structure within WP is quite clear, and the cultural ethic within
it appears to be, ?Be bold, take risks, but if you get into trouble you're
on your own?.

If Wikipedia ultimately fails ? and I sincerely hope it does not ? it will
not be due to outside influences, but, rather, an indifference to its
people.

An organization can be held together for a while by paper clips, clear tape
and patching plaster, but the real bond that holds it together is its
people.

There is a cancer in the culture.

Marc Riddell

--
"The world is too terrible a place to live in, not because of the bad things
that happen, but because of the good people who stand by and do nothing."

                                                             Albert Einstein


body:
On 2/13/07, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> All right, if you're going to use acronyms, please create the relevant
> article.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPA

Or you could, you know, go to WP:SPA that's been around since april of
last year.


body:
On 13/02/07, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> Mark Williamson wrote:

> >[[WP:NPA]] -- you're not going to get anyone's sympathy nor their
> >attention if you call people stupid.
> >[[WP:OWN]] -- you don't own any of the articles you wrote. You gave up
> >all rights to the text when you submitted them to Wikipedia. They will
> >not be deleted.

> I would like to see how that would stand up in a court if wikipedia is
> denying me access without a valid reason (not a vandal etc).

Sue and see if the GFDL holds up in court.

- d.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Foundation-l] Clearing up Wikimedia's media licensing policies

body:
luke brandt wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>The first clause in the quotation is remarkable for its ambiguity.  My
>>first inclination was to read this as indicating that property is
>>essential to the definition of culture, or that a society that does not
>>believe in capital does not have a culture.  A more acceptable
>>interpretation is that a culture does not exclude the existence of
>>property.  In other words
>>
>>
>>>A free culture is not a culture - without property
>>>
>>>A free culture is not - a culture without property
>>>
>>>
>>Having artists be paid is acceptable in both circumstances.  In
>>accounting terms, property is an asset on the balance sheet; getting
>>paid belongs in the revenue portion of the financial statements.
>>
>>
>Hi, and thanks for your thoughts. In clarifying the quote how do you
>think you should take into account the second sentence - seemingly the
>counterpoint and twin of the first in the quotation, which is in
>essence: "A culture without property ... is anarchy, not freedom."  - luke
>
One really needs to look at that second sentence in its entirety: "A
culture
without property, or in which creators can't get paid is anarchy, not
freedom. ..."

Does payment imply property?  Is that second premise an explanation or
an alternative.  If I really wanted to emphasize grammatically fine
points I would suggest that in order to be an explanation a comma would
be required after "paid".  I hesitate to cast this into the areana of
capitalist (property) versus Marxist (payment) dialectic.  There is a
certain idealist thread in Marxism that forsees an anarchic workers'
paradise; some doctrinnaire views of libertarianism might get us there
too.  That aside, I can see neither the capitalists nor the Marxists
promoting anarchy.  Wikinomics is in its infancy, and in that context it
is perfectly understandable that Lessig would use the jargon of the
society around him.

There are a lot of grammatically negative words in the Lessig quote, and
I wonder if he would have done better to express things in more positive
terms.  Even "free" has a basis in an absence.

One of the consequences of living in a paradigm shift is the destruction
of presumptions.  That curse of interesting times escapes its box, and
makes itself felt where it was not expected.

The fact is that there are a lot of people providing a lot of
intellectual effort for nothing other than the personal satisfaction of
doing a good job.  They need to put food on the table as much as anybody
else. There is a profound disconnect between work and compensation for
that work.  The marketting and manufacturing structures that supported
the enterprises that have heretofore been highly profitable are no
longer needed, casting aside an army of Willy Lomans.

Most of us who have an interest in Wikipedia and this mailing list also
have an interest in free access to knowledge.  We are highly critical of
the notion of intellectual property, particularly copyright.  Property,
as we traditionally define, it generates revenue solely on the basis of
its own existence.  Is that the kind of property that Lessig considers
to be the antidote to anarchy.  In summary I agree with him in relation
to creators being paid, but have serious reservations in relation to
property.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admins and elitism

references:
<45D22AC4.9000306@gmail.com>
	<4491.69.21.252.114.1171401850.squirrel@www.internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<nbb4t25193eadldpp1rkam39ja8qkv1fg0@4ax.com>

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

> Whoa there.  Wikipedia is reputation based.  We have editors who have
> a firm place in whatever elite one might infer we have, by dint of
> their contributions, but who are not and never will be admins.  And
> that's before we get to Giano...

Ba-dum-ching!

> No, it's not hard to sanction an admin.  All they have to do is
> something stupid.  The big problem is that there is a reluctance to
> bring those sanctions before the community.  We seem to have nothing
> between "ZOMG! He deleted my article on my band I just formed last
> week!  Rouge admin abuse!" and total meltdown.

That's fair.  But...

> The main problem, I
> think, is that there is no calm atmosphere for discussing the
> performance of admins (and that brings us back to the thread earlier
> about admin meltdown).  I seriously do believe there should be a place
> for admins to discuss their actions and quietly admonish each other
> for being bloody silly *without* making it a three-ring circus.  And
> yes, that goes against the Wiki ethos, but the problem with openness
> is that there are a lot of POV-pushers out there just looking for
> chinks in the armour.  I'd hope the need for privacy would be
> temporary, but I perceive it as being there.  I also believe that
> trusted non-admins should be allowed to take part.  Just not
> any-old-editor coming to take the next pot-shot at whatever admin
> stepped in to stop their particular content dispute.

This *could* act as a solution, but not as a great one.  I mean, right
now, as it stands, if an administrator (to use my pet peeve) is
consistently abusing the speedy deletion policy, I have one choice to have
anything substantive done about it - ArbCom.  Of course, no one really
wants to do that, and it doesn't always result in a prompt resolution -
one open-and-shut case I presented last summer still took weeks, which is
fine, but isn't always helpful.  Etc etc.

Your clearinghouse idea has significant merit, though.

>>2) More importantly, adminship is viewed as a reward rather than a
>>responsibility, thus creating a protector group of admins.  There's one
>>recently-promoted admin in particular who embodies this concept, but
>> there
>>are many like him.
>
> You might want to run that past a few admins and see how loudly they
> laugh.  Seriously, anyone who wants to be an admin should try it for a
> couple of weeks and see how they like it.

I should be clearer.  The reward part of it comes from the editor class,
not the administrator class - I'm sure admins knee deep in the muck don't
see it as a reward.  However, the result of users nominating users as a
reward and then becoming a protector type still stands - I see it too much
not to be concerned by it.  It's not a god complex as much as something
else I can't find the words for.

-Jeff
--
If you can read this, I'm not at home.


subject: [WikiEN-l] "About Wikipedia" in navigation sidebar

body:
Tim Starling wrote:

>Steve Bennett wrote:
>
>
>>Current events: Weird, never even noticed this before. Do people
>>actually click it?
>>
>>
>Yes, it's always been one of our most popular pages.
>
>http://hemlock.knams.wikimedia.org/~leon/stats/wikicharts/index.php?lang=en&wiki=enwiki&ns=all&limit=100&month=01%2F2007&mode=view
>
>5th if you don't count the special pages.
>
It's good to know that Saddam Hussein is more popular than sex. :-)

Ec


body:
On 13/02/07, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:

> >Sue and see if the GFDL holds up in court.

> Yes mister Gerard why should you help a fellow wikipedian out I wonder.

I happily help people who don't *start* with screaming and shitting on
the wrong list.

- d.


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 2/13/07, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:
> Has the look of a commercial engine. Not sure if it's good or not, but
> seems 'profesional'.
> Instead of Copyright... Copyleft? ;)

But copyleft wouldn't be accurate for much of the media. I think that
when this is 'done' the best thing would be to display license with
the image... in due time, in due time.


from_name: Ben McIlwain

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

Brion Vibber wrote:
> Claudi Meneghin wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> is there a way to export section of articles by the 'special:export' feature, please?
>
> Nope, sorry. Get the page and extract the bits you want.

Might there be a reason for this feature?  Something about mobile
devices perhaps?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFF0jfovCEYTv+mBWcRAt2CAKCPD9u4dVFky0PdCfZgHMHibTp3HACgmYxI
DdhhkL0iiWSkd7hiLX4zB30=
=6lzj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin burnout

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>"Thomas Dalton" wrote:
>
>
>>>And the values of both are culturally constructed (i.e. arbitrary) as
>>>is the balance between them.  I know one of the more prominent risk
>>>theorists, he has a hard time getting people to accept the validity of
>>>the concept of plain bad luck.
>>>
>>>
>>Exactly - that cultural construction is what people are talking about
>>when they say someone is more or less risk-averse than someone else.
>>
>>
>Up to a point.  There are two issues: first, the /value/ of risk and
>the /value/ of reward are subjective; second, the perceived /balance/
>between them differs.
>
>To say that different individuals are more or less risk averse is only
>half the story - they may be identically risk averse but have formed
>different judgments of the value of risk in a given context.
>
"Plain bad luck" in our context means that there may be instances where
we will be sued no matter what we do.

Ec


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Foundation-l] Support WMF via GoodSearch

body:
These folks allow you to use a version of Yahoo! search where 50% of
ad revenue goes to a charity of your choice:

http://www.goodsearch.com/

On your first visit, you can choose the charity (Wikimedia is among
those supported). You can also review how much money has been raised
so far (apparently $3 in January). Pretty cool, IMHO. I've set it as
my default search and will see if it makes a difference. I _do_ search
a lot. :-)

Now let's hope Yahoo! doesn't suck too much compared to Google .. ;-)
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.


from_name: Marco Chiesa

body:
Walter van Kalken wrote:

>This is about the 4th or 5th time in a year that this is happening so
>may I be tat pissed of. and in all those times I can only remember you
>as the least co-operative of all and the most aggressive.
>
>Waerth
>
>
I'n not sure how many nl.wiki sysops are on this list, but I'm pretty
sure there are more on wikipedia-nl, or on the Dutch IRC channel. Since
you're a well known and respected user, I see no reason why they
shouldn't unblock your IP every time you ask, at least for registered
users. If all Thailand shares the same IP, then it would be a good idea
to write that in the IP's userpage, so that sysops only apply short or
soft blocks. Or become sysop yourself so you can auto-unblock
yourself... But I guess you already knew these answers...

Marco


body:
On 13/02/07, Steve <subsume at gmail.com> wrote:

> Can we end this feud?
> What is the state of things? "Too bad so sad" or is there a way to
> appeal this problem?

en:wp has the ability to block only for IP users, not for logged-in
users. I'd be surprised if nl:wp lacks this.

i.e., it needs to be taken up with nl:wp. No-one here who isn't an
nl:wp admin can do anything.

- d.


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
Hoi,
Even though what you write is true, you do not make the point by
referring to the English Wikipedia rules.
Thanks,
     GerardM

Mark Williamson schreef:
> Hi,
>
> [[WP:NPA]] -- you're not going to get anyone's sympathy nor their
> attention if you call people stupid.
> [[WP:OWN]] -- you don't own any of the articles you wrote. You gave up
> all rights to the text when you submitted them to Wikipedia. They will
> not be deleted.
>
> Mark
>
> On 13/02/07, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
>
>> The issue has been raised over 10 times and everytime it is happening
>> again. I want someone to toss some heads finally ot I will want all my
>> 1000 + articles I wrote deleted as I cannot edit them anymore.
>>
>> Waerth
>>
>>
>>> The Foundation is deliberately restrained from managing the community
>>> and content of Wikimedia projects. This separation exists for many
>>> reasons. You should raise this issue with the community of the Dutch
>>> Wikipedia.
>>>
>>> Walter van Kalken wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I am getting extremely impatient with RonaldB he seems to have a fetish
>>>> for blocking Thai IP addresses on the Dutch wikipedia and he doesn't
>>>> answerd emails send to him. I cannot even edit when I am logged in, not
>>>>
>>> >from a friends computer which uses a different provider. Is it the
>>>
>>>> wikimedia foundations goal to block me??
>>>>
>>>> The last two weeks I have found the IP adresses of my provider
>>>> constantly blocked, pre-emptively by RonaldB without any sign of
>>>> vandalism by those IP adresses. Wikipedia can be editted by anyone? Not
>>>> by me!
>>>>
>>>> Waerth


from_name: Mathias Schindler

body:
On 2/13/07, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> The issue has been raised over 10 times and everytime it is happening
> again. I want someone to toss some heads finally ot I will want all my
> 1000 + articles I wrote deleted as I cannot edit them anymore.

Hi Walter,

I would like to ask you to donate at least 10% of your efforts which
are usually spent on this list by you to convince the Thailand
government or the Thai ISPs to fix their internet access so we might
be able to ban "just the right people" in the future. 10% should be
more than enough to convince them.

Mathias