subject: [WikiEN-l] Babel template en-5

body:
On 26/04/06, Death Phoenix <originaldeathphoenix at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't use it, but I suspect en-5 was originally supposed to be used to
> denote those who write English professionally, such as journalists, writers,
> and editors. My own profession would probably qualify. However, I only use
> the native English one to point out that, yes, I know English as a native,
> but I find it really unnecessary from a Babel point of view to point out
> that I can write professionally (especially when my quality of edits on
> Wikipedia is often subpar).
>
> I don't really see a need for en-5, but I don't begrudge those folks who
> want to use it.

I would like to know more about what the babel boxes are really
supposed to be used for. I definitely write better English than the
average English speaker. I'm even a professional technical writer (for
all the qualifications that required :)) And I speak French pretty
well.

What benefit, besides pure ego, does sharing this information with the
world via babel boxes actually have? Someone mentioned once seeking
out speakers of certain languages for help in translation, but it
seems to me that specific "En->Fr 3" boxes would be more
appropriate...no?

Steve


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Sam Pointon

subject: [WikiEN-l] Verifiability equating to notability

body:
On 01/05/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/05/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On *fD, <foo>cruft is shorthand for 'articles about <foo> that are
> > below my personal notability threshold'.  Thus its application is
> > generally tautological and only serves to denigrate the subject
> > matter.
>
> And/or discredit the person using the term. It really is a pretty
> offensive term, but I don't know if most people using it realise that.

Some people use 'cruft' (me, for example) in the original sense - it's
the word for that dust and fluff you pull out from under furniture. It
is, outside of Wikipedia, most commonly applied to badly written and
messy programming. Back in Wiki context, the term (when used in this
sense, at least) makes no assertion of notability, but rather suggests
that the article is in need of a major rewrite and/or cleanup.

So 'listcruft' implies a poorly-written list, probably in need of a
loving Wikipedian to take it in and foster it back to full health.
However, some 'cruft' is beyond redemption, and the best remedy for
that is a brand new stub to take its place.

Can you tell I don't regularly take part in AfDs?

--Sam


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Yuri Astrakhan

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki API (SoC)

body:
Brion and Ben,

User NicoT ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NicoT ) contacted me
about helping to develop the query API as part of Google's SoC. He
outlined some of the goals for the API on his page (above), and has
been actively looking at the code and communicating over an IM. Even
though API might be less important than, lets say rich editor or a new
parser code,  it should still be considered as a valuable proposition,
especially if a value-add applications can be developed on top of
basic method calls.

--yurik

On 5/1/06, Ben Francis <lists at hippygeek.co.uk> wrote:
> Brion,
>
> You have removed the Client API entry from the Summer of Code page on
> the wiki with a comment "Removing this since a number of people are
> actively working on such already".
>
> Who are the number of people who are actively working on this and does
> this wiki change signify that the Client API project is officially no
> longer open for applications through Summer of Code? Bearing in mind
> applications open today.
>
> Yours disappointedly,
>
> Ben
>
> --
> Ben "tola" Francis
> http://hippygeek.co.uk
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unfair Blocking

body:
maru dubshinki wrote:
> On 5/1/06, Galen Williams <banbanbananaman at gmail.com> wrote:
>> *I have been blocked for using my first name, Ban, as a username. Your
>> username policy says nothing that could indicate "Ban" as being an
>> impersonation of someone, offensive, or otherwise worthy of any level of
>> blocking. Here is the error message:*
>>
>> *Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing*.
>> You were blocked by Anonymous
>> editor<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anonymous_editor>for the
>> following reason (see our blocking
>> policy <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy>): "username"
>>
>> Your IP address is *64.233.172.4*.
>>
>> *If there is some obvious reason for blocking me that I cannot see, then can
>> I use "Ban Galen?"*
>>
>> *Thank you for your time.*
>>
>> *: Ban Galen :*
>
> Heh. It is unfortunate that your chosen name is "ban", and we "ban"
> vandals. Anyhoo, I've unblocked you, since you don't seem to be
> foaming at the mouth.
>

Might want to cc: that to the OP...

--
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: 551 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060502/1a558d61/attachment.pgp


from_name: Russell Blackford

body:
I find it difficult to set rules in the abstract - all the more so from
being a lawyer by training, with a good knowledge of how slippery language
can get once you try to apply it to an unforeseen situation. Thankfully we
only have policies and guidelines to worry about, not things that are
supposed to be binding laws. I'd agree with you about the Foo case, though.
I would vote to delete such an article unless I saw evidence that other
people with some profile were already commenting on the "Foo" meme (e.g.
op.ed. pieces, editorials, or well-known blogs (but what is "well-known"?).
Without that, I'd consider the article original research. (Put aside whether
there's a dicdef issue; I'm assuming the article could be expanded beyond a
mere definition of "Foo").

In other cases I'm not so sure. What about all those articles on fictional
characters who may not have been discussed much in critical sources? I
wouldn't necessarily want to say that these characters are non-notable, even
though I sometimes think we give too much importance to them and not enough
to real people who are important in the adult world. I think they are
notable because they often just do have a cultural impact that we can all
sort of take judicial notice of without dreaming up novel theories. If we
accept that much, I'm then happy for someone to say: "Sammy Snark gets
killed at the end of the first-series story arc of Blogsville" with a
citation to the actual episode rather than to a secondary source. In this
sort of context, some easily replicable putting together of a narrative
doesn't worry me, and I don't interpret the original research proscription
as covering this kind of thing in spirit. What's your take on this kind of
example?

Russell (a.k.a Metamagician3000)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Block" <steve.block at myrealbox.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 11:41 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Verifiability equating to notability

> Russell Blackford wrote:
>> It's dangerous to apply the notion of "original research" too literally
>> outside of its original context (dealing with crackpot theories, or
>> simply
>> novel ones, student essays, and so on). Beyond that context, I'm not
>> literalistic, and I don't need a lot of guidlines. I think I know it when
>> I
>> see it, and I think I know what is not intended to be covered by the
>> expression when I see it, even if it could be brought under the literal
>> description that is used. Common sense has to prevail, I think, which is
>> why
>> we have all these processes involving shared community perceptions.
>>
>> An example of something that is probably NOT "original research": "Bloggs
>> has approvingly cited the work of Derrida to attack the philosophy of
>> bohemian snarkism. According to Bloggs, it is all 'words, words, words.'
>> <reference, Joe Bloggs, Anti-Snark, p. 300>"
>>
>> An example of something that certainly IS original research: "Bloggs, who
>> has attacked the philosophy of bohemian snarkism, could have found
>> further
>> support for his view by applying certain claims famously made by Derrida.
>> <reference, Jacques Derrida, Words/ Words/ Words, p. 300>"
>>
>> We all make these kinds of distinctions reasonably confidently, don't we?
>> When in doubt, at the margins, we do indeed want to call on our
>> collective
>> wisdom. The process seems straightforward enough to me, though I suppose
>> I
>> might change my mind if I got caught in an edit war over it.
>>
>
> I think we're in broad agreement.  The trouble is, at the thin edge, you
> get people arguing that because everyone says "Foo", we can have an
> article on "Foo", and note all the blogs and people who have said "Foo",
> especially on "XYZ message boards", because Bloggs has set up a website
> documenting the history of XYZ message board, and also the posts are all
> archived and you can clearly see where Bleggs said "Foo" to Blaggs and
> Bliggs banned him.
>
>
> Apparently, because this can all be sourced it isn't original research,
> because there are no sources disputing it it isn't a point of view, and
> it's all sourced so it's verifiable.  The issue is that it is original
> research because the particular documentation of these things create a
> novel narrative which exists nowhere but on Wikipedia.  But that doesn't
> seem to hold sway over people.  To me, no original research means we
> can't personally see it, we need someone to see it for us and then we
> can summarise them.  So if nobody else has commented on Bleggs saying
> "Foo" to Blaggs in a reliable source, it's original research for us to
> document it.  The problem is that there is an issue as to whether things
> recorded on the internet as they happen exist in the same sense as a
> tree, a cat and that four stop Phil mentioned.  Is the internet a
> reliable source in and of itself?
>
> Notability is an issue in the sense that everyone mentions it an no-one
> agrees on what it means.  I was attempting to cut through various
> discussions which were attempting to allow, for example, memes which
> have existed for a year to be recordable.  Given there's not much of a
> definition of a meme to start with, a meme pretty much being an idea
> which catches on, it seems like allowing any idea which catches on to be
> documentable after having caught on for a year a little mad.  To me.
> For starters, how would we define whether a meme has caught on or not?
>
> And then, why can't we allow website X to be added, it's been online for
> a year, why isn't that allowed, and so on and so forth.  The idea was to
> base notability within the three policies we have already, which as they
> stand, would also allow Phil's Four Stop article.  I was kind of seeing
> a lower tier triumvirate of notability, deletion policy and Wikipedia is
> not.
>
> Steve block


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-05-02

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

Running test Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test Magic Word: {{NUMBEROFFILES}}... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test Language converter: output gets cut off unexpectedly (bug 5757)... FAILED!

Passed 301 of 305 tests (98.69%) FAILED!


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [WikiEN-l] Babel template en-5

body:
On 5/2/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> One of the best writers of English on the projects is Erik M?ller, a
> German.  His English is much better than the average English speaker and
> indeed much better than even a lot of Wikipedians.
>
> Even so, I will rarely notice him writing something that doesn't sound
> quite right.  Usually this is not quite an _error_ but just some kind of
> _oddness_.  His English is German-flavored.

The worst thing about it is that I'm speaking and using English so
much that it's taking a toll on my German. Whenever I speak at a
conference in Germany, people later come up to me, with a slightly
confused look, and ask me: "That was very interesting, Mr. M?ller, but
I have just one last question. Where are you _originally_ from?"

The Brits tell me I sound American, the Germans tell me I sound like a
foreigner, and the Americans tell me I'm "German flavored". And you
still didn't get the umlaut right, you insensitive clod! ;-) It's
M?ller, not M?ller. Unless you were talking about some other guy, in
which case you can disregard this posting. ;-)

Erik


list: foundation-l

from_name: Anthere

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

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Birgitte SB wrote:
>
>>I am sure there
>>are many documents availble under the terms of no
>>modification that Wikisource would love to have.  I do
>>not know why you think such works would have no place
>>simply beacuse they cannot be modified.
>
>
> This has always been our policy everywhere.  If there are documents
> under Wikisource which are under nonfree licenses, and I am not aware
> that there are, they should be deleted immediately.
>
>
>>I see no
>>value whatsoever in being able to modify the works of
>>Charles Dickens, the Paris Peace Accords, or the
>>Constitution of Singapore.  In all honesty I see think
>>this is true for 90% of material on Wikisource.
>
>
> I can absolutely see many reasons to modify each of those.  Not *on*
> wikisource, mind you.
>
> 1. Charles Dickens - perhaps I want to write an updated version,
> modernizing the tale to deal with contemporary issues... I would find
> the public domain text perhaps an excellent starting point.
>
> 2. Paris Peace Accords - imagine that I am writing historical fiction,
> and I want to explore how some minor change in the provisions of a
> treaty might radically impact history... I might want to include a
> modified version of the Paris Peace Accords in an appendix of my novel.
>
> 3.  Constitution of Singapore - perhaps I am a free speech advocate
> seeking to persuade people that Singapore's constitution needs to be
> modified in various ways to contribute to a healthier society.
>
> --Jimbo

Yes.
Birgitte, you may be confusing the *licence* under which the texts are
available to the public, and the *policy* of non-modification of these
original texts on wikisource.

Wikisource does not modify the texts itself, but it should seek to make
modification possible for those who will use the texts later.

Ant


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Pete Bartlett

body:
>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of PS2 DVD9
Games]]

How sad. Lots of votes to delete. And none of them presenting
a cogent argument. Uses of the word "-cruft" as some sort of excuse
to avoid having to do so.

The one user who presents an argument is the one who created
the list, and you play the man not the ball by arguing about the
few edits he has in the Wikipedia: namespace. He has few edits
there because he spends his time trying to create content!

Pete

p.s. The information should be merged into the broader list of games.

----- Original Message ----
From: Joe Anderson <computerjoe.mailinglist at googlemail.com>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 2 May, 2006 8:04:36 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Verifiability equating to notability

When I'm using the term listcruft it is not intended to offend the
author. Look at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of PS2 DVD9
Games]].

On 5/1/06, Sam Pointon <free.condiments at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/05/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 01/05/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On *fD, <foo>cruft is shorthand for 'articles about <foo> that are
> > > below my personal notability threshold'.  Thus its application is
> > > generally tautological and only serves to denigrate the subject
> > > matter.
> >
> > And/or discredit the person using the term. It really is a pretty
> > offensive term, but I don't know if most people using it realise that.
>
> Some people use 'cruft' (me, for example) in the original sense - it's
> the word for that dust and fluff you pull out from under furniture. It
> is, outside of Wikipedia, most commonly applied to badly written and
> messy programming. Back in Wiki context, the term (when used in this
> sense, at least) makes no assertion of notability, but rather suggests
> that the article is in need of a major rewrite and/or cleanup.
>
> So 'listcruft' implies a poorly-written list, probably in need of a
> loving Wikipedian to take it in and foster it back to full health.
> However, some 'cruft' is beyond redemption, and the best remedy for
> that is a brand new stub to take its place.
>
> Can you tell I don't regularly take part in AfDs?
>
> --Sam
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Joe Anderson

[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: ! Chris Sherlock

subject: [Foundation-l] Free advertising on Wikipedia

body:
>
> Eric wrote:
> > How does turning on nofollow punish anyone?  Nobody is entitled to
> > free pagerank just because they've been listed on Wikipedia.
>
> I see two possibilities:
>
> 1) Wikipedia specifically has a very high influence on a site's
> ranking. In this case, turning off nofollow will alter the shape of
> the web in search engines which respect it. If the average quality of
> links in Wikipedia is higher than the average quality of links outside
> Wikipedia, the quality of these search engine results as a whole will
> deteriorate. This is not about entitlement, it is about using the
> influence we have responsibly.
>
> OR
>
> 2) Due to mirrors, enabling or disabling nofollow has hardly any
> visible effect on search engine rankings. In that case, it would be a
> placebo effect.
>
> As I said, I think timing the addition of external links and enabling
> nofollow only for recent additions might be a reasonable compromise.
>
> Erik
>

I think we need to start asking another question, and not from Wikipedia or
any Wikimedia project. My question is: *why* is Google making mirrored
content from Wikipedia appear so high up in their search results? Surely
that is killing off the effectiveness of their own search tool? I have
always wondered why critics blame us for this, when we are only giving away
free information.

Surely with Google's super smart workforce they would have worked out how to
exclude or give less weight to Wikipedia mirrors by now?

Chris


from_name: Death Phoenix

subject: [WikiEN-l] Babel template en-5

body:
On 5/1/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 26/04/06, Death Phoenix <originaldeathphoenix at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't use it, but I suspect en-5 was originally supposed to be used to
> > denote those who write English professionally, such as journalists,
> writers,
> > and editors. My own profession would probably qualify. However, I only
> use
> > the native English one to point out that, yes, I know English as a
> native,
> > but I find it really unnecessary from a Babel point of view to point out
> > that I can write professionally (especially when my quality of edits on
> > Wikipedia is often subpar).
> >
> > I don't really see a need for en-5, but I don't begrudge those folks who
> > want to use it.
>
> I would like to know more about what the babel boxes are really
> supposed to be used for. I definitely write better English than the
> average English speaker. I'm even a professional technical writer (for
> all the qualifications that required :)) And I speak French pretty
> well.
>
> What benefit, besides pure ego, does sharing this information with the
> world via babel boxes actually have? Someone mentioned once seeking
> out speakers of certain languages for help in translation, but it
> seems to me that specific "En->Fr 3" boxes would be more
> appropriate...no?
>

The reasons Jimbo gives are pretty valid. I know a few other languages, but
I find my skills in those are largely useless in the context of Wikipedia,
therefore I don't list them. :-)


from_name: Angela

body:
On 5/2/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:

> Is Erik authorized to speak to other groups (such as the FSF) as a
> representative of the Wikimedia foundation?

The announcement does say "None of them is acting here in an official
capacity related to their affiliations."

My involvement with this is my own. I made it clear I wasn't talking
for Wikimedia, and I've no doubt Erik did the same.

Angela.


from_name: Patrick Aljord

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

body:
Hey all,
I would like to work on  the external editor helper with a
cross-platform Qt/C++ interface.
I'm trying to make the ee.pl work but I get an error about my password
and url match.
This is what I put in my ini file:
[MediaWiki]
URL match=en.wikipedia.org
Username=patcito
Password=<mypassword>

isn't that correct?

thanx in advance

Pat


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject:
[WikiEN-l] The onward march of the meaning of
	"original	research"

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 02/05/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 5/2/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I don't see what's original research about this.
>>>
>>It's all a matter of definition. Under some definitions, Wikipedia
>>thrives on original research and could not exist without it. We are
>>all researchers the moment we decide to pick a topic, study the
>>sources, evaluate them carefully, weigh expert against expert and make
>>decisions about what to include and what to omit, how to arrange the
>>text, which "NPOV" terms to use, and so on.
>>
>
>Can someone summarise the case for considering photos of
>Wikipedian-identified animals as OR, though?
>

I don't know any serious editor that is suggesting that photos are
somehow original research - I took the original message as a
sarcastic comment on the many tortured misintepretations of NOR.

It is true that identifying plants and animals from photos is a bit
of a minefield - very often the key characteristic(s) distinguishing
a species from all others is not visible in the photo, so one might
say that that makes it "unverifiable" without other info, such as
a label on a cage. On the other hand, people who've worked with ToL
images on WP/commons have run into a number of cases where
professional photos collected from the net are misidentified too,
so it's not a problem unique to us, and I think we just need to
encourage people to be conservative about id'ing (if you're not
certain, back off to genus or family id), and to regularly review
images for accuracy, just we would for article text.

Stan


from_name: Cheney Shill

subject:
[WikiEN-l] The onward march of the meaning of "original
	research"

body:
Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
Essentially, I have always seen it as a useful supplement to
[[Wikipedia:Verifiability]].

When the policy is used to remove legitimate information that is
clearly correct, or to impede the daily work of contributors against
all common sense, it is used against its original purpose and should
be interpreted in that light. Policy is a means to an end, not an end
in itself.

I agree about the OR-verifiability relationship.  What confuses me in your statement is what you mean by "clearly correct" and "common sense".  Both of these are subject to POV (and OR) if left to judgement calls.  Are you restating what meets the verifiability policy with different words to help clarify or do you mean something else?~~~~Pro-Lick

---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low  PC-to-Phone call rates.


from_name: Phil Boswell

body:
Andre Engels wrote:
>
> I think that the solution should be to remove many more links than are
> done now. When I read that Gregory Maxwell removed 45 links from a
> page and kept another 45, in my opinion he has been rather reserved -
> rare is in my opinion the page that needs more than 3 links. Wikipedia
> is not a link collector.
>

Maybe not, but one of our Prime Directives is "cite your source". This often
requires multiple external links because there are multiple sources.

One hopes that you would class this type of link as "necessary" but there
seem to be people to whom this kind of thing is like a red rag to a bull and
would set upon a radical link-ectomy without bothering to consider whether
there is any conflicting policy.

Indeed a small minority of them might even consider rewriting policy to
imply that they were correct all along.
--
Phil
becoming more cynical, which is a shame...
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Free-advertising-on-Wikipedia-t1534304.html#a4179761
Sent from the WikiMedia Foundation forum at Nabble.com.


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

body:
The first half of your post answered my questions.  I haven't decided
if I agree yet :), but it does make sense.

On 5/2/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > But as I pointed out when the comment was first made, it's not clear
> > whether or not the four-way stop on that intersection is verifiable
> > without resorting to original research.  It might be, and it might not
> > be.  It would, of course, be the job of the person adding the
> > information to show that it is.
>
> But what, in this instance, is original research?  Is sourcing from
> public archives original research?  Is reading a book original research?
>   Is looking at a map original research?
>
> Steve block
>
The way I see original research is basically any text which can't be
derived trivially from a published source.  That's my understanding,
without looking at any Wikipedia pages.

Now I suppose "derived trivially" is subject to some dispute there.  I
like the way Steve Bennett explained this, though I think we have to
allow interpretation (including context) to the extent that no one
would reasonably dispute the interpretation.

And that's another factor that has to be kept in mind.  NOR is, more
than anything, a fallback for when there is a disagreement.  If no one
(who isn't banned, anyway) has a problem with the text as its written,
then NOR can safely be ignored.  NOR comes into place when someone,
(anyone acting in good faith), reads a statement in a Wikipedia
article, then reads the source or sources, and isn't *convinced* that
the statement is true.

To answer your questions...  The main source of original research in
the four-way-stop case would be direct observation.  Interviews would
also qualify as original research, to give another example.  Sourcing
from public archives wouldn't be original research as far as I'm
concerned.  Reading a book, assuming a published book, would be fine.
Looking at a map, assuming a published map, would be fine too.

What counts as published?  I'm sure there's grey area, but the main
distinction is that copies are available to the public, for free or
for a fee.

Anthony


body:
On 5/2/06, Lars Aronsson <lars at aronsson.se> wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
> > Content which forbids derivied works is not anymore free content than
> > content you can use but not distribute.  Both are without cost, both
> > deny you what would be considered natural rights without copyright,
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation maintains archives of its own mailing
> lists, for example this one.  Is that free contents?  Should I be
> allowed to modify and distribute the record of what you said?
>
I certainly don't consider my mailing list posts to be free content.
I've given permission for Wikimedia to distribute copies via email to
everyone on the list.  That's it.  Any other use is not permitted via
license, though it might fall under fair use or some other exception
to copyright law.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] Babel template en-5

body:
On 5/2/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It's actually considered rude on hold conversations in one language on a
> project written in another, simply for the reason that most other users
> of that project won't be able to read what's being said. IIRC there was
> some fuss about vote-stacking in other languages...
>

Imbojay isay otnat ayay oodgay Enevolentbay Ictatorday. Iyay aysay eway
agestay ayay utinymay anday aketay  overay ethay Ikimediaway Oundationfay
anday inallyfay ethay orldway. Oomay hayay hayay hayay hayay!


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Babel template en-5

body:
On 02/05/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Speaking only for myself, I often try to talk to people from all the
> different language editions of wikipedia.  I like to know what level of
> English a person feels comfortable with so that I can try to accomodate
> them as much as possible if necessary.  I enjoy taking the time to
> review things that I have written, asking myself whether I have used an
> obscure word when a common word would suffice, etc.

Now that's a good point - WP's other than en. So perhaps someday a
French speaker will realise he can chat to me in French on en, rather
than in English. Probably a more likely scenario with less common
languages though.

I have to say, editing a Wikipedia where you don't speak the language
at all is a pretty interesting experience - and not quite as pointless
as it sounds. When you a good free image, it's probably worthwhile
adding it to several different wikipedias, but it can be a real
challenge for the following reasons:
* the interface is totally in the foreign language (could this be a
user setting?)
* it's hard to know what to put as an edit summary - do you just leave
it in English?
* different WPs seem to have different conventions on Wikitext markup.
For example, French WP seems to put category and stub tags up the top,
rather than at the bottom.
* no single login ;)

It would be good if the barriers to English speakers contributing to
non-English Wikipedias could be reduced somewhat. Or even if some
mechanisms whereby in one hit you could alert all the talk pages of
all the interwiki articles that link to/from this article that there
is some juicy new image/chunk of text/piece of news that they might
want to add.

Steve


body:
On 01/05/06, Pete Bartlett <pcb21 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Over at the Tree of Life wikiproject we like to have people upload photos of
> any species they don't recognise and we try to identify them before dispatching
> them to a suitable article. That hasn't come under threat yet as "original research"
> but I fear it is only a matter of time.

I don't see what's original research about this. The worst that could
happen is that the label (that is, the article it's assigned to)could
be inaccurate - but that could happen to any information contributed
to Wikipedia. If someone later on finds a better image that they're
*sure* is a Four-horned purple-bellied lizard, then they should
replace the doubtful one.

Steve


from_name: Joe Anderson

body:
When I'm using the term listcruft it is not intended to offend the
author. Look at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of PS2 DVD9
Games]].

On 5/1/06, Sam Pointon <free.condiments at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/05/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 01/05/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On *fD, <foo>cruft is shorthand for 'articles about <foo> that are
> > > below my personal notability threshold'.  Thus its application is
> > > generally tautological and only serves to denigrate the subject
> > > matter.
> >
> > And/or discredit the person using the term. It really is a pretty
> > offensive term, but I don't know if most people using it realise that.
>
> Some people use 'cruft' (me, for example) in the original sense - it's
> the word for that dust and fluff you pull out from under furniture. It
> is, outside of Wikipedia, most commonly applied to badly written and
> messy programming. Back in Wiki context, the term (when used in this
> sense, at least) makes no assertion of notability, but rather suggests
> that the article is in need of a major rewrite and/or cleanup.
>
> So 'listcruft' implies a poorly-written list, probably in need of a
> loving Wikipedian to take it in and foster it back to full health.
> However, some 'cruft' is beyond redemption, and the best remedy for
> that is a brand new stub to take its place.
>
> Can you tell I don't regularly take part in AfDs?
>
> --Sam
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Joe Anderson

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Babel template en-5

body:
Another problem Babel template for me is tlh-0. I want to learn
Klingon, I just don't speak it!

On 5/2/06, Death Phoenix <originaldeathphoenix at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/1/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 26/04/06, Death Phoenix <originaldeathphoenix at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I don't use it, but I suspect en-5 was originally supposed to be used to
> > > denote those who write English professionally, such as journalists,
> > writers,
> > > and editors. My own profession would probably qualify. However, I only
> > use
> > > the native English one to point out that, yes, I know English as a
> > native,
> > > but I find it really unnecessary from a Babel point of view to point out
> > > that I can write professionally (especially when my quality of edits on
> > > Wikipedia is often subpar).
> > >
> > > I don't really see a need for en-5, but I don't begrudge those folks who
> > > want to use it.
> >
> > I would like to know more about what the babel boxes are really
> > supposed to be used for. I definitely write better English than the
> > average English speaker. I'm even a professional technical writer (for
> > all the qualifications that required :)) And I speak French pretty
> > well.
> >
> > What benefit, besides pure ego, does sharing this information with the
> > world via babel boxes actually have? Someone mentioned once seeking
> > out speakers of certain languages for help in translation, but it
> > seems to me that specific "En->Fr 3" boxes would be more
> > appropriate...no?
> >
>
> The reasons Jimbo gives are pretty valid. I know a few other languages, but
> I find my skills in those are largely useless in the context of Wikipedia,
> therefore I don't list them. :-)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Joe Anderson

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
Joe wrote:
>Ironic how your reply is uncivil.

Yes I thought Charles wasn't quite up to his usual high standards,
but we''ll let him off this time.

>I'm trying to simply ask for opinions as to whether or not calling something
>cruft is uncivil. I'm sure the majority of AfDers would agree with me,
>though I'm sure many editors would disagree.

If its not clear that AfD is often an uncivil place (including using -cruft etc),
then you've been there too long!

In an ideal wiki, editors taking part in AfD should be prepared for
dealing with more than their fair share (bewildered, upset) newbies
and should be extra specially careful not to bite them.

It is a great shame so many don't -
It costs us content, and more importantly, new contributors.

Pcb21

----- Original Message ----
From: Joe Anderson <computerjoe.mailinglist at googlemail.com>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 2 May, 2006 4:21:19 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

Ironic how your reply is uncivil.

I'm trying to simply ask for opinions as to whether or not calling something
cruft is uncivil. I'm sure the majority of AfDers would agree with me,
though I'm sure many editors would disagree.

Perhaps we could create a [civil] debate.

Also, if you think of my conduct as bad I ask you to comment at [[Wikipedia
talk:Community Justice]], where the council has the power to remove me as
chair if, I'm found to have done misconduct!

Once again, thanks.

Joe

On 5/2/06, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> "Joe Anderson" wrote
>
> > Basically, I campaign for civility around the Wikipedia and by calling
> > something -cruft I'm apparently uncivil.
>
> That you are.
>
> > Cruft is a term generally used on AfD - may it be fan or listcruft. It
> is
> > used so much, I never even realised it could be looked upon as uncivil!
>
> Well, your campaign has a long way to go.
>
> > IMO, calling me a hypocrite is a lot more uncivil (if not even a breach
> of
> > [[WP:NPA]]) than calling something listcruft.
>
> It sounds timely, though. (Oh no, I'm about to type 'wake-up call', my
> second-most-hated cliche after 'defining moment.)
>
> > I have no interest in making a big deal over this :D .
>
> Thank God for that.  That would only be to call attention to yourself.
>
> Charles
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Joe Anderson

[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 5/2/06, Lars Aronsson <lars at aronsson.se> wrote:
> The Wikimedia Foundation maintains archives of its own mailing
> lists, for example this one.  Is that free contents?  Should I be
> allowed to modify and distribute the record of what you said?

Is it? No.
Could it be? Sure.

I think you're making a fallacious appeal to emotion when you say
"Should I be allowed to modify the record of what you said?"

So, let's get something straight: When you talk about 'modifying the
record of what I said', you're not talking about anything related to
copyright infringement, you're talking about fraud.

No I don't want you to modify the 'record of what I said' because that
would be deceptive. Do I care if you take my words and spread them
widely? No.  Do I care if you alter them and make it clear that they
don't necessarily reflect my views, then spread them widely?  No.

People don't communicate in public forums what they wish to keep
secret.  Yes they sometimes desire limitations, but those are grounded
in ethics, in respect, and in honesty. Copyright is too blunt a tool
to try to achieve those things.

> Suppose Google's big Usenet archive or the site Gmane.org had to
> close down, and the Wikimedia Foundation could take over the
> contents.  That's where I think a CC-ND license could make sense.

Can you explain what you are talking about?
The usenet posts are copyrighted by their posters. Their works are not
licensed under CC-ND.
Do you suggest that we contact all prior usenet posters, both living
and dead, and ask them to replease their works under CC-ND?

> Recently I've been looking into MusicBrainz.org, where the core
> database of CD albums, tracks, and artists is released into the
> public domain ("the product"), but data relating to the user
> community ("the factory") is released under a Creative Commons
> license that only allows non-commercial (NC) use.

Musicbrainz isn't a group commit ed to free content, that their output
is free is as much of a response to the massive abuse of the public
that the CDDB folks committed so many years ago as it is anything
else.

What would be interesting here is not a mention that they license a
certain way, but *why* they license a certain way.

> This makes me wonder if Wikipedia user and talk pages really need
> to be released under exactly the same license as the main article
> namespace.  I don't remember that this was analyzed.  User pages
> were just introduced (in 2002) without talks of licensing.  And I
> don't think anybody discussed the licensing for the mailing list
> archives, which are indeed very close to user page discussions.

When we to start permitting userpages to contain non-free content, I
think that it would be clear at that point that the project had
forgotten it's goals.  Wikimedia websites are not myspace.

If you don't want to distribute your userpage as free content you are
using it for something for which it is not intended.

I'm not sure if it was analyzed at the time, but it's certainly been
analyzed since then.

> This also reminds me of Erik M?ller's Kuro5hin posting "Creative
> Commons -NC Licenses Considered Harmful",
> http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/9/11/16331/0655
> where some of the reader comments made me realize that there can
> be cases where NC makes sense, and other cases where it is
> harmful.  Maybe the same goes for ND.

> Are we trying to force every foot into the same shoe here?

Name a licensing scheme and there is some situation that someone can
come up with that makes sense...  I don't think that anyone is
claiming otherwise.

A great many licensing schemes, including ND and NC, are not what any
sane person who has considered the issue would consider free licenses.

Wikimedia is dedicate to free content. There are many other
organizations out there which are dedicated to no-cost content. Those
other organizations will likely find NC and ND licenses quite
attactive, while Wikimedia finds them generally unacceptable.  This
isn't trying to force every foot into the same shoe, it's just a
result of having a purpose.

Freedom has tremendous advantages, it also has significant costs.
There is a place in the world for free content. This is what wikimedia
is for, and this is why you get so much objections when you wish to
introduce things which look and smell somewhat free but are not.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
Jargon such as "-cruft" and "nn" is not helpful for newbies.

I think what gets peoples backs up more than that is the sight of 7 or 8
people all writing the same thing (*'''Strong delete'''. NN listcruft ~~~~)
on nomination after nomination. We get the message after three, ok!

----- Original Message ----
From: Joe Anderson <computerjoe.mailinglist at googlemail.com>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 2 May, 2006 5:08:07 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

John, Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope of
interest is pretty much what I thought it meant.

On 5/2/06, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
>
> Kelly Martin wrote:
>
> >On 5/2/06, Joe Anderson <computerjoe.mailinglist at googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I accept that some may see it as uncivil, but I for one do not.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >In my opinion calling content contributed in good faith by our valued
> >contributors "cruft" is incivil.  It sends the clear message that
> >their contributions, and by extension themselves, are valueless.  Why
> >can't you just say "Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due
> >to limited scope of interest"?
> >
> >Kelly
> >
> >
> What if what Joe took "cruft" to mean what you just said? After all,
> isn't that what it *does* mean? Why the stigmatism?
>
> John
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Joe Anderson

[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV majorities/minorities

body:
This regards Undue weight part of NPOV:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight

There still seems to be a great deal of ambiguity, even among admins, as to what qualifies as a majority.  So here's a simple example to evaluate as a starting point.

*View Moo has 3 sources that support it.
*View Bark has 15 sources that support it.

Which has the majority?  Should either be be dropped completely?  Should either be reduced to a footnote or an "other views" section deeper within the article? Again, for simplicity, all the sources are equally reliable, reputable, and prominent.

Other than all or most of the sources of either being non-notable or biased, are there any circumstances in which you would reverse the majority/minority or consider Moo and Bark equal?

---------------------------------
Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone  calls to 30+ countries for just 2?/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.


from_name: Sue Reed

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
But, by inserting that fact, weren't you also trying to
discredit that person's opinion as being a "newbie". When
people do this on RfA or AfD, it really annoys me. I
understand if the person is a suspected sock and you are
trying to point them out as such. But, if we are a
community that encourages people to "be bold", why do we
also going around pointing at the newbies?

--- Joe Anderson <computerjoe.mailinglist at googlemail.com>
wrote:

> By saying Only 91 edits. This is first to this namespace
> I was attempting to
> insert fact without opinion.

Sue Anne
User:Sreed1234


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
>But, by inserting that fact, weren't you also trying to
>discredit that person's opinion as being a "newbie". When
>people do this on RfA or AfD, it really annoys me. I
>understand if the person is a suspected sock and you are
>trying to point them out as such. But, if we are a
>community that encourages people to "be bold", why do we
>also going around pointing at the newbies?

Very strong agreement with this.

Even worse is the "first to this namespace" bit.
It implies that you have to make 10 delete votes
or something before you are allowed to ask to keep
an article!

The "spends too much time in the article namespace"
criticism seen on RfAdminship is especially baffling to me.


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
Joe Anderson wrote:
> I'm trying to simply ask for opinions as to whether or not calling something
> cruft is uncivil. I'm sure the majority of AfDers would agree with me,
> though I'm sure many editors would disagree.
>
I consider "-cruft" to be highly uncivil and IMO it also tends to be a
good indicator that whoever's using the term doesn't have a strong
argument to support his case for deletion beyond a personal lack of
interest in the subject matter. I'm not an AfDer, though, and I suspect
this philosophy is one of the reasons _why_ I'm not.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
Why is it important? Why should a first edit to the
namespace be viewed any differently than a 100th edit to
the namespace?

Sue Anne
User:Sreed1234

--- Joe Anderson <computerjoe.mailinglist at googlemail.com>
wrote:

> The fact it was the first edit to the namespace is of
> importance. If I
> observed, even if I agreed, I would post it.


body:
On 5/2/06, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2006/5/1, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com>:
>
> > We recognize that the inclusion of this content is a violation of the
> > other half the goal of the project. As a result it is only permitted
> > to include fair use in English wikipedia where doing so compromises
> > our ability to be a quality encyclopedia.
>
> Yet when Wikisource wants to include ND to avoid compromising their
> ability to be a source of original texts, you do not want to allow
> them to do so? Also, does this statement mean that you are of the
> opinion that the German Wikipedia, which does not allow fair use in
> any form whatsoever, is not a quality encyclopedia?
>
I think there's a big difference here between (most) images and (most)
text.  As Erik pointed out, for instance, a document which cannot
legally be translated is not a free document.  But translation doesn't
apply to most images.  The same applies, although to a lesser extent,
for short quotes, which is the other place fair use is generally used.

FWIW, I think the English Wikipedia should allow ND images as much as
it should allow "fair use images".  That is, much less than fair use
is currently used, but still sometimes, when there is no other choice.

Anthony


body:
On 5/2/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't see what's original research about this.

It's all a matter of definition. Under some definitions, Wikipedia
thrives on original research and could not exist without it. We are
all researchers the moment we decide to pick a topic, study the
sources, evaluate them carefully, weigh expert against expert and make
decisions about what to include and what to omit, how to arrange the
text, which "NPOV" terms to use, and so on.

Our original research policy does not exist without a reason, of
course. It exists so we can prevent material from being added which is
either obviously spurious, or which we have no means to verify.
Essentially, I have always seen it as a useful supplement to
[[Wikipedia:Verifiability]].

When the policy is used to remove legitimate information that is
clearly correct, or to impede the daily work of contributors against
all common sense, it is used against its original purpose and should
be interpreted in that light. Policy is a means to an end, not an end
in itself.

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
Joe Anderson wrote:
> As said, I did not realise the term could be seen as uncivil, perhaps you
> could assume good faith in not only the new member but in me?
>
You said "I'm trying to simply ask for opinions as to whether or not
calling something cruft is uncivil", so I gave my opinion on the matter.
I even quoted your request for opinions and had an "IMO" in my answer
for good measure. I don't see a problem here, what other sort of
response were you looking for?


from_name: Lars Aronsson

body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:

> Content which forbids derivied works is not anymore free content than
> content you can use but not distribute.  Both are without cost, both
> deny you what would be considered natural rights without copyright,

The Wikimedia Foundation maintains archives of its own mailing
lists, for example this one.  Is that free contents?  Should I be
allowed to modify and distribute the record of what you said?

Suppose Google's big Usenet archive or the site Gmane.org had to
close down, and the Wikimedia Foundation could take over the
contents.  That's where I think a CC-ND license could make sense.

Recently I've been looking into MusicBrainz.org, where the core
database of CD albums, tracks, and artists is released into the
public domain ("the product"), but data relating to the user
community ("the factory") is released under a Creative Commons
license that only allows non-commercial (NC) use.

This makes me wonder if Wikipedia user and talk pages really need
to be released under exactly the same license as the main article
namespace.  I don't remember that this was analyzed.  User pages
were just introduced (in 2002) without talks of licensing.  And I
don't think anybody discussed the licensing for the mailing list
archives, which are indeed very close to user page discussions.

This also reminds me of Erik M?ller's Kuro5hin posting "Creative
Commons -NC Licenses Considered Harmful",
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/9/11/16331/0655
where some of the reader comments made me realize that there can
be cases where NC makes sense, and other cases where it is
harmful.  Maybe the same goes for ND.

Are we trying to force every foot into the same shoe here?

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


body:
On 5/2/06, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2006/5/1, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com>:
>
> > We recognize that the inclusion of this content is a violation of the
> > other half the goal of the project. As a result it is only permitted
> > to include fair use in English wikipedia where doing so compromises
> > our ability to be a quality encyclopedia.
>
> Yet when Wikisource wants to include ND to avoid compromising their
> ability to be a source of original texts, you do not want to allow
> them to do so?

I see a lot of handwaving in this regard, but I don't see a lot of
solid argument.
What content are we going to get under ND which we can't get under a
free license?

> Also, does this statement mean that you are of the
> opinion that the German Wikipedia, which does not allow fair use in
> any form whatsoever, is not a quality encyclopedia?

I have a three part reply:

First, the argument I posted about english Wikipedia is not entirely
my own.  Personally, I'd prefer the quality loss to liberate ourselves
entirely from the licensing complexities of non-free, and even
non-wikipedian, created content.  That said, until we get control over
what is being uploaded .. it's  moot point.   But yes, I do believe
that the exclusion of excerpts of copyrighted works reduces the
quality of the encyclopedia... and the DE editors appear to agree
through their actions.

Secondly, de wiki *does* contain fair use images, although not that
many. They are mistakenly (or dishonestly) mislabled as public domain.
 PD tagged content on enwiki which claims to have come from DE wiki is
a red flag, unless it is wikipedian created it is usually copyvio.

Finally, DE wiki exists in a different market place than enwiki.
Perhaps things are different there, but here we have encarta and other
electronic encyclopedias with extensive collections of licensed
content. Users are often surprised by our unwillingness to accept
content, when the Enwiki behavior is quite permissive compared to
dewiki.

> As for texts that actually are under an ND license and that people
> would want on Wikisource: What about the GNU/FDL license itself?
> Surely, even if Wikimedia itself were under a different license, the
> text of the license would be suitable to put on Wikisource? Yet, the
> license of the license reads:
>
> Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
> of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
>
> ND, in other words.

Our current distribution of it is as metacontent, not a part of our
projects. The wikimedia logos are also unfree.

And no, I don't see any problem with this... I'm not waging a holy war
against unfree content. We've drawn a bright line which declares the
purposes of the projects, and it makes sense to  uphold those
purposes.


body:
On 5/2/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> I think there's a big difference here between (most) images and (most)
> text.

I don't.
Man, this discussion stuff is easy! I don't even have to think.

> As Erik pointed out, for instance, a document which cannot
> legally be translated is not a free document.  But translation doesn't
> apply to most images.

Well I've translated a few images from Dewiki, but translation isn't
the only valid alteration of an image.  Derrived works are made
frequently of free images on english wikipedia. If you'd like I can
send you dozens of examples off list.

> The same applies, although to a lesser extent,
> for short quotes, which is the other place fair use is generally used.
>
> FWIW, I think the English Wikipedia should allow ND images as much as
> it should allow "fair use images".  That is, much less than fair use
> is currently used, but still sometimes, when there is no other choice.

You've argued this before... Yet you haven't presented a situation
where we'd get "ND images or no other choice".  All I've ever seen on
this front is the example of fat-ego photographers who want to pretend
to contribute to Wikipedia while simultaniously damaging the freedom
of the content that defines the project... and even in these cases,
we're not in a position where no other image is possible.


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki API (SoC)

body:
Ben Francis wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote:
>> It's certainly valuable, but I don't think it fits within the Summer of Code
>> framework, which requires the students to do their own work rather than
>> collaborating in groups with the outside.
>
> The comment on the website states that it has been removed because
> people are already working on it, here you say it has been removed
> because you don't think it meets the criteria, which is it?

Both. It doesn't meet the criteria because multiple people are working on it, as
it's a community effort already underway.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060502/7201d524/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Steve Block

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> On 4/30/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
>> Verifiability, NOR and NPOV do not mean we can write articles on topics
>> we happen to feel should have them, they mean we should write articles
>> on topics for which we have good sources, the summation of which do not
>> amount to the original research through creating a novel narrative, and
>> which does not impart greater weight to the topic than exists in the
>> wider world, represented by the reliable sources we seek.
>>
> I don't see how V, NOR, and NPOV imply that we should not impart
> greater weight to a topic than exists in the wider world.  For that
> matter I don't even understand what that means.

What I mean is I'm trying to figure out the answer to the following
question, is an article written about foo, using only foo as a source,
written from a npov?  My main line of thinking has been that to use foo
as the only source in an article on foo imparts undue weight to foo;
there are no other sources to use in writing an article, so by writing
the article I am asserting a point of view that the article should
exist.  Is that the reason articles should exist, or should articles
exist because there are external sources we can use to write from a
neutral point of view?

Can we write an article which basically says:

Foo is a website which allows you to create a blog.  You do that by
visiting this link, filling out this form and then you have a blog.  Foo
also hosts forums, which are broken down into sub-forums focussing on
such topics as films, music and eggs.  Foo doesn't have a chat room, but
a lot of people who use foo use the same chat room at this link.
Recently users of foo had a contest on foo's message boards and voted
this film the best ever film.

Because I don't seem to be able to work out, through the various
policies, why we can't.  Because primary sources are allowed to be used
as sources for information on themselves, and this is the argument I
don't understand, because it seems to mean I can create an article on my
self using my blog as a source.  If I can't do that, why can people game
Wikipedia by creating articles on forums and websites which have no
external sourcing simply through sheer weight of numbers?

> But as I pointed out when the comment was first made, it's not clear
> whether or not the four-way stop on that intersection is verifiable
> without resorting to original research.  It might be, and it might not
> be.  It would, of course, be the job of the person adding the
> information to show that it is.

But what, in this instance, is original research?  Is sourcing from
public archives original research?  Is reading a book original research?
  Is looking at a map original research?

Steve block

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.1/328 - Release Date: 01/05/06


from_name: Birgitte SB

body:
--- Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2006/5/2, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com>:
>
> > Show me a case where we can get an ND license, but
> the prospect of
> > getting a free license are zero,  show me cases
> where accepting an ND
> > license wouldn't hurt our ability to obtain a free
> license.
>
> I already mentioned one: The text of the GNU/FDL and
> the GPL are
> themselves under an ND license.
>

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


body:
On 02/05/06, Sam Pointon <free.condiments at gmail.com> wrote:
> Some people use 'cruft' (me, for example) in the original sense - it's
> the word for that dust and fluff you pull out from under furniture. It
> is, outside of Wikipedia, most commonly applied to badly written and
> messy programming. Back in Wiki context, the term (when used in this
> sense, at least) makes no assertion of notability, but rather suggests
> that the article is in need of a major rewrite and/or cleanup.

You probably wouldn't use the term to describe a bunch of articles
recently written by an enthusiastic young contributor to Wikipedia,
who simply needs to be guided towards areas of Wikipedia more in need
of his energy, then.

It's really hard to avoid causing offense when you're nominating an
article for deletion, or even supporting a nomination. Pity that some
people don't even try :/

Steve


body:
Birgitte SB wrote:

> The works I see us dealing with here are religous
> works, goverment works, and manifestos of political
> groups etc.  These sorts of works forbid modifiction
> because the authors do not want to be misrepresented
> not because they want to profit from the work.  This

The Creative Commons has licenses that require attribution (-BY)
and those that don't require attribution.  But I don't think they
have one that forbids attribution.  It seems appropriate to link
attribution to derivate works in a non-misrepresentation (NM)
license clause, that would allow greater freedom than today's ND.
Have they tried anything like that?

For whole recorded songs or films, the CC Sampling license strikes
a similar balance between the CC-SA freedom to reuse in parts and
the CC-NC prohibition of wholesale commercial copying,
http://creativecommons.org/license/sampling

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


body:
--- Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2006/5/2, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com>:
>
> > Show me a case where we can get an ND license, but
> the prospect of
> > getting a free license are zero,  show me cases
> where accepting an ND
> > license wouldn't hurt our ability to obtain a free
> license.
>
> I already mentioned one: The text of the GNU/FDL and
> the GPL are
> themselves under an ND license.
>

I agree this is a good example.  Most all the cases I
have seen are not any of a release under CC-by-ND, but
more in the line of a notice stating "the copyright
holder permits distribution of this document without
modifications so long as this notice remains intact."
Wikisource does not often deal with documents from
places which are involved with the "free culture"
movement.  So we have next to nothing that is released
under Creative Commons or GFDL besides the work of our
editors.  But I will try to compile a list of conrete
works that this disscussion involves soon.

Birgitte SB

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


from_name: Kelly Martin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
On 5/2/06, Joe Anderson <computerjoe.mailinglist at googlemail.com> wrote:
> I accept that some may see it as uncivil, but I for one do not.

In my opinion calling content contributed in good faith by our valued
contributors "cruft" is incivil.  It sends the clear message that
their contributions, and by extension themselves, are valueless.  Why
can't you just say "Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due
to limited scope of interest"?

Kelly


body:
On 5/2/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/2/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > I think there's a big difference here between (most) images and (most)
> > text.
>
> I don't.
> Man, this discussion stuff is easy! I don't even have to think.
>
Well, I went on to explain the difference...

> > As Erik pointed out, for instance, a document which cannot
> > legally be translated is not a free document.  But translation doesn't
> > apply to most images.
>
> Well I've translated a few images from Dewiki, but translation isn't
> the only valid alteration of an image.  Derrived works are made
> frequently of free images on english wikipedia. If you'd like I can
> send you dozens of examples off list.
>
No, that's not necessary.  I can show you examples of public domain
content which was used without attribution.  That doesn't mean
Wikipedia should rely solely on public domain.

The question is whether or not something which *doesn't* allow for
unlimited modification should be allowed.  That something which *does*
allow unlimited modification is better is undisputed.

> > The same applies, although to a lesser extent,
> > for short quotes, which is the other place fair use is generally used.
> >
> > FWIW, I think the English Wikipedia should allow ND images as much as
> > it should allow "fair use images".  That is, much less than fair use
> > is currently used, but still sometimes, when there is no other choice.
>
> You've argued this before... Yet you haven't presented a situation
> where we'd get "ND images or no other choice".

What about a corporate logo released under the ND license, and only
the ND license?  What about a cartoon character released under the ND
license, and only the ND licence?  What about a movie poster, or a
magazine cover, or a painting, or a clip from a DVD?  Pretty much any
image under the ND license, when you are talking about that image
itself, and not the thing depicted by the image.

Anyway, we should be talking about principles here, not specific
examples.  The ND license itself isn't even the point, as it's only an
example.

Anthony


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: GerardM

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

body:
Hoi,
The term "Open Access" has a very specific meaning; it is the name of
the movement to make scientific publications and information available
to fellow scientists. As you may know many university libraries
struggle to find the money to keep scientific publications available.
The Open Access movement aims to make this data available and, this is
done in many ways.

Given the work you do on WiktionaryZ, I trust you have considered a
glossary as part of this project? :)

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 5/1/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Wikimedia community,
>
> I am posting this to multiple lists, as I believe it is relevant to
> each of them (more on that below).
>
> For years, we have been using the term "free content" to refer to our
> projects. However, what exactly is free content? Does it include the
> right to make commercial use? Does it allow derivative works? A year
> ago, Anthere, one of our elected trustees, noted that the English
> Wikipedia article [[free content]] is confused and contains no clear
> definition. This is no surprise, as the term has evolved purely
> through its usage. One year on, the article doesn't look much better
> and still doesn't contain a single reference.
>
> It is clear that we need a definition. With the help of feedback from
> the likes of Richard Stallman and Lawrence Lessig, and an increasing
> number of collaborators, I have drafted up a first version of such a
> definition, called the "Free Content and Expression Definition":
>
>         http://freecontentdefinition.org/Definition
>
> You can also use the URLs <http://freedomdefinition.org/> or
> <http://freedomdefined.org/>. Please use the URL
>
>         http://freecontentdefinition.org/static/ (with trailing slash)
>
> when submitting this link to high traffic sites.
>
> Licenses covered by this definition must grant the following freedoms:
>
> * the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it
> * the freedom to redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the
> information or expression
> * the freedom to make improvements or other changes, and to release
> modified copies
>
> The essence of these freedoms is not negotiable. However, in order to
> best express, interpret and elaborate on these freedoms, I would like
> to announce an open editing phase to push this Definition to a 1.0
> version. There is a stable, protected version of the definition and an
> unstable, openly editable one. The openly editable one, which may
> already differ significantly from the one above by the time you read
> this, can be found at:
>
>         http://freecontentdefinition.org/Definition/Unstable
>
> You can suggest changes on the talk page, or be bold and make them
> directly. The change process will be consensus-based. In order to
> decide when a consensus has been reached on a change, I have appointed
> three moderators besides myself:
>
> * Benjamin Mako Hill. Mako is a co-initiator of the definition and a
> prolific figure in the free software community. To quote Wikipedia, he
> "is a Debian hacker and author of the Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 Bible
> (...). He currently works in the electronic publishing group of the
> MIT Media Lab, and is on the boards of Software in the Public
> Interest, Software Freedom International (the organization that
> organizes Software Freedom Day) and the Ubuntu Foundation."
> * Angela Beesley. You may be familiar with her. ;-) She's the other of
> the two elected trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, and also the
> Vice President of Community Relations at Wikia, Inc.
> * Mia Garlick. General Counsel at Creative Commons, and an expert on
> IP law. Creative Commons is, of course, the project which offers many
> easy-to-use licenses to authors and artists, some of which are free
> content licenses and some of which are not.
>
> None of them is acting here in an official capacity related to their
> affiliations. Please treat their comments as personal opinion unless
> otherwise noted. See
> <http://freecontentdefinition.org/Authoring_process> for details on
> the authoring process and
> <http://freecontentdefinition.org/Moderators> for more about
> moderation.
>
> The Creative Commons project has welcomed the effort to clearly
> classify existing groups of licenses, and will work to supplement this
> definition with one which covers a larger class of licenses and works.
>
> In addition to changes to the definition itself, we invite you to
> submit logos that can be attached to works or licenses which are free
> under this definition:
>
>         http://freecontentdefinition.org/Logo_contest
>
> Why is this relevant to the projects I am alerting about it?
>
> Wikipedia
>
> Has the most significant problems distinguishing between free and
> non-free materials simply because of the sheer amount of uploads and
> user-submitted content. The English Wikipedia, for instance, allows
> limited "fair use" in addition to free content uploads, but prohibits
> licenses which forbid commercial use. This definition allows us to
> state clearly: "An uploaded work must either be free content, or fair
> use. If it is fair use, strong restrictions apply, and your upload may
> be deleted or replaced at any time."
>
> The definition also contains remarks about interoperability with other
> licenses. This is a problem that concerns us at the moment when it
> comes to importing texts under licenses which are philosophically
> similar, but legally incompatible with the GFDL. If the definition
> gets widely adopted, we can push for changes to licenses to make them
> more compatible with each other.
>
> Wikimedia Commons
>
> Commons was launched as a free content repository. We have effectively
> followed the terms of the definition in the licenses we allow and
> prohibit for uploaded files; however, the discussions about whether to
> allow, for example, pictures which cannot be used commercially keep
> coming up. Clearly labeling the repository as a free content archive
> under this definition will help to avoid that.
>
> Wikinews
>
> I've seen some uploaded photo galleries that were under licenses which
> forbid derivative works. If we limit Wikimedia projects to free
> content, that would explicitly not be allowed. This is an example of
> "non-free content creep" that may be observed on other projects as
> well.
>
> Wiktionary
>
> The definition contains recommendations about license complexity.
> Wiktionary as a resource for terminological and lexicological data
> does not benefit from the highly complex terms of the GFDL, which
> require, for example, reprinting the entire license text when copying
> a single page.
>
> Wikimedia
>
> The definition makes it easy to resolve the question of which licenses
> to allow or disallow across projects. For example, a Wikimedia-wide
> policy could be that: "All content in all projects must be free
> content as per the Free Content Definition 1.0, with the exception of
> works which are used under exemptions granted by national copyright
> laws, such as 'fair use' in the United States. These exemptions are
> defined on a per-project and per-language basis."
>
> Outside Wikimedia, the definition will make it easier for us to
> communicate. For instance, many people use the very vague terms "open
> access" or "open content", or simply talk about "a Creative Commons
> license" when describing licensing of their work. The term "free
> content" has an existing usage in the sense described herein. With the
> additional support of this definition, it is a powerful and simple way
> to determine whether a work is usable in the context of the Wikimedia
> projects.
>
> One note on the choice of name. Not all people will be happy to label
> their works "content", as it is also a term that is heavily used in
> commerce. This is why Mako and I have compromised on the name "Free
> Content and Expression Definition" for the definition itself. We are
> suggesting "Free Expression" as an alternative term that may lend
> itself particularly to usage in the context of artistic works.
> However, we remain open on discussing the issue of naming, and invite
> your feedback in this regard.
>
> All that being said, I hope that you will join the open editing phase
> or the logo contest. Even if there will be very little feedback, I
> hope we will be able to release a 1.0 version of this definition
> fairly soon.
>
> You will find a general announcement that you can copy and paste to
> other places at:
>
>     http://freecontentdefinition.org/Announcement
>
> Please leave a quick note in the log when distributing it. As a final
> note, if you create an account on the wiki, I would appreciate it if
> you could use your real name as your user name.
>
> Thanks for your time,
>
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


body:
On 02/05/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/2/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't see what's original research about this.
>
> It's all a matter of definition. Under some definitions, Wikipedia
> thrives on original research and could not exist without it. We are
> all researchers the moment we decide to pick a topic, study the
> sources, evaluate them carefully, weigh expert against expert and make
> decisions about what to include and what to omit, how to arrange the
> text, which "NPOV" terms to use, and so on.

Can someone summarise the case for considering photos of
Wikipedian-identified animals as OR, though? I sort of feel that, for
a start, images are just decoration in any case. If an editor wanted
to say "According to official sources, Green-horned Bats are only
found in Transylvania, whereas this example was photographed in
Gippsland" that might be one thing. But since we can't use copyrighted
images, it seems absolutely necessary that we allow images taken by
amateur photographers. We, or the reader, can then compare the photo
to photos in published sources to confirm that they are close enough
to be considered an accurate representation of the subject.

Which leads me to think: It actually doesn't matter if our photo is
genuinely of a Green-horned Bat, or whether it's actually a
Yellow-horned Bat with a bit of photoshop work. It is simply a
representation after all.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Babel template en-5

body:
On 02/05/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's actually considered rude on hold conversations in one language on a
> project written in another, simply for the reason that most other users
> of that project won't be able to read what's being said. IIRC there was
> some fuss about vote-stacking in other languages...

I can understand that, particularly if the people in question do both
speak English to an acceptable degree. But, in terms of "getting the
encyclopaedia written", I don't see a major problem with two editors
carrying on a conversation in Lugandan while debating how best to
write an article about Ugandan culture, literature etc...

Perhaps the unspoken ban on languages other than English contributes
to the "systemic bias"?

> Yes. See [[Special:Preferences]]. I've got accounts (and have edited on)
>  the French, German, Italian and Polish Wikipedias (doing image
> replacement mostly), even though I have no understanding of Italian or
> Polish, and can barely remember a few words of French and German from
> school.

Oh, thanks!

> Babelfish? :)

What a pity that babelfish, in the 6 or 7 years I've been using it,
hasn't added any significant number of new languages.

> Different social customs as well.

Yep. Minefield.

> Learning other languages would be a good start. I find it extremely
> distasteful that native English speakers (especially certain people from
> a country which shall not be named) expect that everyone speaks their
> language, and worse, their particular version of it.

Definitely, but learning 20+ languages is no easy task! Other than
French, I can read Spanish more or less, and can pick out bits of
German. But even to get to basic textual conversational competency is
a fair challenge. I'm keen to have a go though :)

Steve


from_name: Zoney

body:
On 26/04/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
>
> On Apr 25, 2006, at 2:39 PM, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
> >> I can provide multiple third party reliable sources as evidence that
> >> there is a four way stop on the intersection between Merman Drive and
> >> Terre View Drive in Pullman, Washington. Does that mean that
> >> aforementioned four way stop is worthy of mention in Wikipedia?
> >>
> > According to his proposal, yes, it does.
> >
> > Of course, to be realistic you'd have to add in [[Wikipedia:Article
> > size]].  An article just about a four-way stop would probably be
> > better off merged with another article and redirected, unless it was a
> > particularly interesting four-way stop.
>
> So [[Pullman, Washington]] would have detailed prose about each and
> every single intersection? That's absurd.
>
> --
> Philip L. Welch
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
>
>
There's little need to deliberately present such absurd options, that
obviously aren't being suggested by others.

The logical place to merge a sentence or two about an intersection is into
the article for that route.

More major routes should have each and every intersection mentioned already.

Zoney

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unfair Blocking

body:
On 01/05/06, maru dubshinki <marudubshinki at gmail.com> wrote:
> Bah. He sent a mail to Wikien-l, he can bloody well follow any replies himself.

I'd agree if he were asking us a favour. But when we're the ones at
fault (ie: he was blocked for having done nothing wrong whatsoever),
that's a bit unkind, isn't it?

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] "should not be written by an interested party"

body:
On 01/05/06, Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I agree with Steve's definition of an interested party.  In this context, that would basically apply to people who's jobs directly or indirectly depend on a political party's success.  Politicians, fund raisers, a PR company that does most of its business for a party, a business that receives billions in goernment contracts.  WIki has a nice article that covers most of this:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest

Actually I don't think we have a problem with people editing articles
even if they do have a conflict of interest. It's better if they
declare that conflict, of course. People editing articles about
*themselves* seems to cause the most problems though, because they
take changes so personally, and insist that they know themselves
better than any published source could...

Steve


from_name: Fastfission

body:
Perhaps it is better to think of OR less as a "thing" out there to be
defined but as an "ideal" which will inevitably and forever present
tough distinctions about what is or is not OR but in the end will
hopefully develop a productive tension.

The goal of the OR policy is not to necessarily shoot everything which
could potentially be OR on the spot. As has been noted many times OR
can be applied to all sorts of instances -- ever act of synthesis has
a little bit of OR in it. However it is only in contentious cases that
the OR rule needs to be pulled out -- places where there actually are
people arguing against it.

If the identification of a picture of an animal is controversial, then
surely the question of OR could surface on some level. I think that
would be quite healthy on the whole. OR should not, and is not (as far
as I know), used to pre-emptively shoot things down which are
uncontroversial.

I don't think it is necessarily useful or necessary to worry about
every eventuality of what is or is not OR. There is no such thing as
"Original Research" which sits out there in the world in some sort of
Aristotlean ideal form, and there is no simple criteria for telling
what is or is not going to be OR. This should not dismay us, nor does
it invalidate it as a useful heuristic or as a regulation. 150 years
of philosophers arguing on the subject have produced no definition of
"science" that covers all things that people generally consider to be
"science" and excludes things which people generally consider to be
"non-science" (see [[problem of demarcation]] if curious), but that
has not stopped it from being a productive and useful category, if an
essentially contested one.

FF

On 5/2/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/2/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't see what's original research about this.
>
> It's all a matter of definition. Under some definitions, Wikipedia
> thrives on original research and could not exist without it. We are
> all researchers the moment we decide to pick a topic, study the
> sources, evaluate them carefully, weigh expert against expert and make
> decisions about what to include and what to omit, how to arrange the
> text, which "NPOV" terms to use, and so on.
>
> Our original research policy does not exist without a reason, of
> course. It exists so we can prevent material from being added which is
> either obviously spurious, or which we have no means to verify.
> Essentially, I have always seen it as a useful supplement to
> [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]].
>
> When the policy is used to remove legitimate information that is
> clearly correct, or to impede the daily work of contributors against
> all common sense, it is used against its original purpose and should
> be interpreted in that light. Policy is a means to an end, not an end
> in itself.
>
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Ben Francis

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki API (SoC)

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> It's certainly valuable, but I don't think it fits within the Summer of Code
> framework, which requires the students to do their own work rather than
> collaborating in groups with the outside.

The comment on the website states that it has been removed because
people are already working on it, here you say it has been removed
because you don't think it meets the criteria, which is it?

Is there a final decision on this? There still appears to be confusion
over whether this is a Google SoC project or not and we now need to know
whether it is worth applying for. We could just apply and watch our
applications get ranked out of oblivion, but if there's little point in
applying I'd rather know so I can focus my efforts elsewhere :)

I hope I don't come across a little obtuse, I'm just on my way to a
lecture so typing this quickly.

Cheers

Ben

--
Ben "tola" Francis
http://hippygeek.co.uk


body:
On 02/05/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> But what, in this instance, is original research?  Is sourcing from
> public archives original research?  Is reading a book original research?
>   Is looking at a map original research?

Original research is doing research in an "original" (or novel, or
imaginative, non-standard, creative...) way. We've discussed this
quite a lot on this list. It's generally hard to interpret a map
creatively. It's much easier to claim that a book supports your
proposition.

Basically it comes down to: your source should say exactly what you
want it to say. You shouldn't have to interpret it, read between the
lines, take context into account, bear in mind that the author was
homosexual, or that he was running for president at the time. If any
of that stuff is required, you should be using a secondary source to
perform that interpretation for you.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
On 5/2/06, Joe Anderson <computerjoe.mailinglist at googlemail.com> wrote:
> The fact it was the first edit to the namespace is of importance. If I
> observed, even if I agreed, I would post it.

Why?  Why is it of importance?  My first post to the Wikipedia
namespace was an VfD *nomination* [1],  and nobody pointed *that* out.
[2]

Kelly

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Dave_Shea&diff=prev&oldid=8912818>
[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Dave_Shea>


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki API (SoC)

body:
On 02/05/06, Ben Francis <lists at hippygeek.co.uk> wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote:
> > It's certainly valuable, but I don't think it fits within the Summer of Code
> > framework, which requires the students to do their own work rather than
> > collaborating in groups with the outside.
>
> The comment on the website states that it has been removed because
> people are already working on it, here you say it has been removed
> because you don't think it meets the criteria, which is it?
>
> Is there a final decision on this? There still appears to be confusion
> over whether this is a Google SoC project or not and we now need to know
> whether it is worth applying for. We could just apply and watch our
> applications get ranked out of oblivion, but if there's little point in
> applying I'd rather know so I can focus my efforts elsewhere :)

Yes, there are people working on it. No, it's not a suitable SoC
project. The rationale for this, I think, is that the API, similar to
the formalised parser stuff, is the sort of thing which requires a lot
of discussion and collaboration between advanced users, developers,
extension writers, etc. and isn't suitable for the sort of working
environment where a student codes most of it without much interaction,
save for his/her mentor.

Rob Church


body:
On 5/2/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> What about a corporate logo released under the ND license, and only
> the ND license?  What about a cartoon character released under the ND
> license, and only the ND licence?  What about a movie poster, or a
> magazine cover, or a painting, or a clip from a DVD?  Pretty much any
> image under the ND license, when you are talking about that image
> itself, and not the thing depicted by the image.
>
> Anyway, we should be talking about principles here, not specific
> examples.  The ND license itself isn't even the point, as it's only an
> example.

Show me a case where we can get an ND license, but the prospect of
getting a free license are zero,  show me cases where accepting an ND
license wouldn't hurt our ability to obtain a free license.

Until then you're just blowing smoke.


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
On 5/2/06, Patrick Aljord <patcito at gmail.com> wrote:

> This is what I put in my ini file:
> [MediaWiki]
> URL match=en.wikipedia.org
> Username=patcito
> Password=<mypassword>
>
> isn't that correct?

Yes, that should be working. I just tested it again to make sure that
nothing has broken recently. Try setting $ignore_login_error=1; in the
beginning of the file -- does that make the problem go away? Also try
fetching this URL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&action=edit&externaledit=true

and saving it to the disk e.g. as "wpedit.ini", then run ee.pl with
the file as a parameter.

Erik


body:
On 5/2/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> Andre Engels wrote:
> >
> > I think that the solution should be to remove many more links than are
> > done now. When I read that Gregory Maxwell removed 45 links from a
> > page and kept another 45, in my opinion he has been rather reserved -
> > rare is in my opinion the page that needs more than 3 links. Wikipedia
> > is not a link collector.
> >
>
> Maybe not, but one of our Prime Directives is "cite your source". This often
> requires multiple external links because there are multiple sources.
>
> One hopes that you would class this type of link as "necessary" but there
> seem to be people to whom this kind of thing is like a red rag to a bull and
> would set upon a radical link-ectomy without bothering to consider whether
> there is any conflicting policy.
>
> Indeed a small minority of them might even consider rewriting policy to
> imply that they were correct all along.

Um.
In this case I was only talking about links in the external link
section of the page.

The main body has another 24, most of which should also be checked and
possibly removed,  and the ref section has 3.. all of which should
probably stay.

I agree that 45 externals in the external section was too many, but
removing things (even externals) on wikipedia is always a dangerous
game... I'd rather remove too few, and have my changes stand... then
too many and run afoul of a regular editor.


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Babel template en-5

body:
On 5/2/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have to say, editing a Wikipedia where you don't speak the language
> at all is a pretty interesting experience - and not quite as pointless
> as it sounds. When you a good free image, it's probably worthwhile
> adding it to several different wikipedias, but it can be a real
> challenge for the following reasons:
> * the interface is totally in the foreign language (could this be a
> user setting?)

Try the hebrew wikipedia. The interface is reversed.

> * it's hard to know what to put as an edit summary - do you just leave
> it in English?

Generaly

--
geni


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
On May 2, 2006, at 9:01 AM, Kelly Martin wrote:

> In my opinion calling content contributed in good faith by our valued
> contributors "cruft" is incivil.  It sends the clear message that
> their contributions, and by extension themselves, are valueless.  Why
> can't you just say "Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due
> to limited scope of interest"?

My understanding was that "not suitable for inclusion in the
encyclopedia due to limited scope of interest" was the definition of
"cruft".

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
On May 2, 2006, at 9:01 AM, Kelly Martin wrote:

> In my opinion calling content contributed in good faith by our valued
> contributors "cruft" is incivil.  It sends the clear message that
> their contributions, and by extension themselves, are valueless.

Reductio ad absurdum time:

"In my opinion, nominating content contributed by our valued
contributors is incivil. It sends the clear message that their
contributions, and by extension themselves, are valueless."

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


from_name: Jossi Fresco

subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV majorities/minorities

body:
I would argue that as in most situations in which this issue is
brought forward, it is related to controversial articles, due
diligence of editors is required to make an assessment of these sources.

I do not think that the issue is the number of sources that support
this or that POV. Minority POVs are easy to spot in most situations.
A good debate about these sources and their reputability is due, and
consensus hopefully achieved by involved editors.

Simple math will *not" make an article to reflect NPOV.

-- Jossi

On May 2, 2006, at 9:25 AM, Cheney Shill wrote:

> There still seems to be a great deal of ambiguity, even among
> admins, as to what qualifies as a majority.  So here's a simple
> example to evaluate as a starting point.
>
> *View Moo has 3 sources that support it.
> *View Bark has 15 sources that support it.


from_name: jf_wikipedia at mac.com

body:
Vocal opponents in some situations may be "interested parties", such as:

- engaged in legal proceedings with the subject of the article
- "professional" critics whose only notability (if any) is that they
are critics of the subject of the article
- people that run or manage a website or blog whose only purpose is
to oppose, detract, or criticize the subject of the article

Nevertheless, I would point out that "interested parties" are only
encouraged not to edit articles, not prohibited from doing so.
Providing that an editor abides by the content policies of Wikipedia
and he/she does that with civility, his/her edits should be welcome.

-- Jossi

On May 1, 2006, at 9:58 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:

> A vocal opponent is not an interested party. An interested party is a
> party with, well, an interest in the matter, like a shareholder,
> employee etc. For Wikipedia purposes, you can pretty much consider
> interested party to mean the party itself.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
On May 2, 2006, at 1:09 PM, Kelly Martin wrote:

>>> In my opinion calling content contributed in good faith by our
>>> valued
>>> contributors "cruft" is incivil.  It sends the clear message that
>>> their contributions, and by extension themselves, are valueless.
>>> Why
>>> can't you just say "Not suitable for inclusion in the
>>> encyclopedia due
>>> to limited scope of interest"?
>>
>> My understanding was that "not suitable for inclusion in the
>> encyclopedia due to limited scope of interest" was the definition of
>> "cruft".
>
> And "shit" can mean "fecal matter" or just "stuff I don't like".
> Doesn't mean calling something "shit" when you really mean "stuff I
> don't like" isn't incivil.

My point was that many people, including (apparently) myself and the
person who started this entire thread, never knew that "cruft" had
any meaning *apart from* "not suitable for inclusion in the
encyclopedia due to limited scope of interest"

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


from_name: Stan Shebs

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 02/05/06, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
>
>>It is true that identifying plants and animals from photos is a bit
>>of a minefield - very often the key characteristic(s) distinguishing
>>a species from all others is not visible in the photo, so one might
>>say that that makes it "unverifiable" without other info, such as
>>a label on a cage. On the other hand, people who've worked with ToL
>>
>
>Well, I'd sort of say it doesn't matter. Take the simple case of an
>animal whose sex can't be distinguished without close inspection.
>There's no point captioning an image "Male ..." if you can't tell in
>the photo. Perhaps we should just use captions like "A member of the
>Red-horned Bat family, possible the Lesser" or something.
>
But if you know that, in fact, you have taken a closeup picture of
the hands of your local zoo's "Gertie the Gorilla", it's unduly
pedantic to limit oneself to describing the image only as "Gorilla
hands". You could even be misleading, because maybe some expert
knows that Gertie's hands are deformed or otherwise atypical, and
so the Gertie connection is crucial to interpreting the image
correctly, and to allowing that expert to fix up the article months
or years after the picture was taken. (Not entirely hypothetical
either, consider "Free Willy's" floppy dorsal fin that always had
to be explained.)

We have plenty of disk space for uploaders to supply all the
relevant facts they know, and to qualify everything they're
uncertain about.

Stan