from_name: Jonathan

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>David Gerard wrote:
>
>
>>This fellow was banned as User:Amorrow for vicious personal attacks
>>and threats against other users, and again as User:Pinktulip. His
>>personal attacks have escalated to stalking and threats sent to other
>>editors' employers. Fairly obviously, he's *remarkably* unwelcome on
>>anything to do with Wikipedia.
>>
>>
>
>In this particular case, we have escalated it to legal.  And, yes, if we
>have different levels of unwelcome (and we do), David's characterization
>as him being "remarkably" unwelcome is remarkably apt.
>
>Block on sight, revert on sight.
>
>
That has appeared to be the interim solution.

Is it possible to still allow access? Perhaps, there is a vague idea I
can share. I don't side either way, but I do see a desire to preserve a
pure open content environment.

Wikipedia obviously tests how pure it can stay as an open content
structure. It has, unfortunately, by the nature of blocks shimmered away
from being pure. Can we change this so it can stay purely open content?

Do you wonder if some users test Wikipedia's ability to stay open
content as an advertisement plot to toss mud. If someone builds a system
that can support a greater purity in open content, what does that do to
Wikipedia?

The escalated attempts may also not be an advertisement, but it may be a
way to encourage censorship beyond Wikipedia's control. I look on the
news, and I see how there are stories about censorship of individuals in
certain countries, and this particular idea strikes me to have reason
beyond doubt.

It seems applicable that an encyclopedia could include this behavior.
The encyclopedia is about knowledge, so is there a limit on what
knowledge the encyclopedia includes? In particular, this is directed at
the knowledge on human behavior. This is where I intended to leave the
idea vague. It was just substantially important to be aware of such
issues, as I sent this message.

Respectfully,
Jonathan


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject: [WikiEN-l] An emotive plea for unblocking

body:
According to your block log, you have never been blocked. Your IP address,
however, has:

   - 00:45, 17 February 2006
Golbez<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Golbez>blocked "
   128.243.220.42<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:128.243.220.42&action=edit>(
   contribs<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/128.243.220.42>)"
   with an expiry time of 48 hours (vandal)

This IP address has been involved in a lot of vandalism. Since you seem to
be a legitimate editor, I am unblocking this IP address. However I would
strongly urge you to seek counseling for internet addiction.

Ryan

On 2/16/06, Jack Stephens <abstract000 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Users of Wikipedia,
> I write in earnest emotional trauma. I am a self-diagnosed wikiaddict,
> both
> in editing and reading, I have been a prolific wikipedia user and editor
> for
> quite a while now, I am not sure exactly how long, but I feel suitably
> attached to wikipedia to feel sincerely aggrieved, due to my recent
> blocking. My username is Jdcooper, and my IP address 128.243.220.42. When
> attempting to revert some vandalism today I was informed that User:Golbez
> has blocked me with the highly descriptive reasoning: "vandal". As someone
> who has never so much as THOUGHT of vandalising an article in my life, and
> as someone who gets highly troubled by wikivandalism, I was, I feel
> legitimately, sent into a devastating panic by such allegations. My only
> explanation is that, as I am editing from a university network (University
> of Nottingham, Great Britain, if anyone cares) with over 5,000 users,
> vandalism from one of said users may have been disproportionately
> punished.
> Whatever the case, I can assure everyone, particularly Golbez, that I am
> the
> furthest from a vandal you could ever hope to meet. I am a
> non-confrontational user who generally busies himself with correcting
> spelling mistakes, reverting vandalism, merging duplicates and sorting
> stubs. I have e-mailed Golbez about the misunderstanding (as I am sure
> this
> is) but I am unfamiliar with this kind of process (that of unblocking),
> as,
> not being a vandal, this has never happened to me before. I urge someone
> who
> can help me to do so, as I am anxious to get back to editing, my life is
> all
> but meaningless without it.
> Yours hopefully,
> Jdcooper
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbcom has completely lost its mind

body:
On 2/17/06, Guy Chapman <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> I'd say the weeks of debate provoked by doing that has shown beyond
> doubt that it is every bit as disruptive, but what do I know?

Well, minus the death and injury part, perhaps?

It's still an argument on a website.  Not a very productive one, of course.

-Matt


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposal: Task forces

body:
On 2/17/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> So much of this tries to put old whine in new bottles.  It is based on
> the premise that policies should provide unchangeable black and white
> alternatives.  Or that a majority vote creates a policy that will be
> binding on everybody, and remain fairly inflexible.  It sets up
> situations where there are winners and losers, and minimizes the
> opportunities for those losers to seek alternative solutions.

I agree with the whole post. The thing is, Wikipedia, has less need
than any other site for this kind of thing. We actually already have a
group mechanism for updating policy. Our policies are constantly being
reviewed by members of the community and challenged where appropriate.
What would give the "task force" any kind of legitimacy or public
acceptance? Nothing. This whole idea is sort of like selling oranges
next to a public orange tree...

Steve


from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia merchandise

body:
Anthere wrote:
> Angela wrote:
>
>>>Another practical point. In case there is use of logo, there are visual
>>>guidelines to follow.
>>
>>
>>They're at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_visual_identity_guidelines
>>
>>Angela.
>
>
> They were transfered more than a month ago...
>
> Is not that odd that the (internal) search system does not find them ???
>
> ant

I asked Brion...

He said "if it was created less than 3 or so months ago it won't be in
internal search, as that's been broken not updating for a while"

So, that's not a bug, that's a feature :-)

ant


subject: [WikiEN-l] Tracking banned user Andrew Morrow

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 2/17/06, Jonathan <dzonatas at dzonux.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Wikipedia obviously tests how pure it can stay as an open content
>>structure. It has, unfortunately, by the nature of blocks shimmered away
>>from being pure. Can we change this so it can stay purely open content?
>>
>>
>
>Without presuming to speak for Wikipedia, it specifically disclaims
>being any kind of experiment in anarchy, idealism etc (see
>[[WP:NOT]]). Afaik, it's exactly as open as is useful for building an
>encyclopaedia.
>
>Steve
>
Let me clarify "tests." Wikipedia is highly ranked within Alexa, so it
is undoubtedly very popular. It provides a popular medium of
communication. That medium is tested -- not the rules (i.e. anarchy,
idealism, etc). It is obvious that medium is provided to build an
encyclopedia, which is about knowledge. Knowledge is power. Would you
want to see such power to be used as a social weapon. I don't want to
"test" that.


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposal: Task forces

body:
"Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net> wrote in
message news:43F5097B.9070104 at telus.net...
> So much of this tries to put old whine in new bottles.

If this is a typo, it's serendipitous in the extreme: how much of the
traffic on this mailing list could accurately be described thus?.

ROFLMAO
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Userboxes: A modest proposal.

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

David Gerard stated for the record:

> * A user may display three other userboxes, whether by template, page
> transclusion, code substitution, image or other means. Other userboxes
> may be subject to deletion discussion on WP:TFD, except those
> susceptible to speedy deletion under T1."

I would think that vocational boxes might be useful.  The fact that I
was a submariner and am now civilian consultant working with the Navy
/is/ relevant to my Wikipedia work, and is only offensive to people who
are offended by anything related to the US military.

Not that I have any userboxes related to those professions....

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Honk if you've never seen a gun
 sean at epoptic.org | fired from a moving vehicle.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD9gHGMAt1wyd9d+URAsNJAJ9h3zKYeraQqxFZzMFi62TRxsWsbgCfTAhs
oMgB6tr38Rid8OiSrmp2pho=
=n1rR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

subject:
[WikiEN-l] User:Curps Blocking an IP address when he could have
	blocked the individual User

body:
On 2/17/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/16/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hahahah. Can stuff from the mailing list be put on BJAODN?
>
> I don't know how serious you are being here, so I'll answer with a
> straight face.
>
> No, you can't, in general.  Mailing list posts are not automatically
> released under GDFL, as pages on the Wiki are, so the works are not
> appropriately licensed.
>
> There might, of course, be a fair use claim, as always.
>
> --
> Sam

One could always put up a link to the archives


from_name: Death Phoenix

body:
I don't know if it's possible in the software (past or future, coffee or
no), but how about if an admin blocks an IP address, all usernames that
currently exist are unaffected by the block, but all accounts created AFTER
the IP block are affected?

On 2/17/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Theresa Knott" <theresaknott at gmail.com> wrote
> in message
> news:1bfe3eb0602170441t21d76180le9da0ba286eeb830 at mail.gmail.com...
> >> I take this to mean that registered users are also blocked if their IP
> >> address is blocked.
> > Yep that's exactly what happens.
> >>Is this desirable? Can it be changed?
> > Personally i would like the option to be able to unblock registered
> > users if thier find their IP blocked without unblocking everyone else
> > I have no idea if it's possible though.
>
> I'm sure I recall someone saying it should be, it's simply a matter of
> giving a dev sufficient time and coffee to get it done :-)
>
> > Admins should bear in mind collateral damage like this though when
> > blocking. Shared IPs should be dealt with by reverting. Blocking
> > should only be used in emergency situations and the block should be
> > short. An hour is usually enough IMO. I know you all know this already
> > but it doesn't hurt to remind ourselves now and then.
>
> Don't we have a standard notice which we can put on shared-ip pages to
> notify admins when they check on vandals?
>
> Yep: {{SharedIP}}
>
> Maybe we could leverage that a bit...
>
> HTH HAND
> --
> Phil
> [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Userboxes: A radical proposal

body:
We could loose the faith of our users that we could make reasonable
decisions.

Fred

On Feb 17, 2006, at 9:32 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:

> Hi,
>   What is the worst possible thing that could happen if we removed
> userpages altogether? Not user talk pages, but "hands off it's mine"
> user pages.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: jayjg

body:
On 2/17/06, Theresa Knott <theresaknott at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I take this to mean that registered users are also blocked if their IP
> > address is blocked.
>
> Yep that's exactly what happens.
>
> >Is this desirable? Can it be changed?
>
> Personally i would like the option to be able to unblock registered
> users if thier find their IP blocked without unblocking everyone else
> I have no idea if it's possible though.
>
> Admins should bear in mind collateral damage like this though when
> blocking. Shared IPs should be dealt with by reverting. Blocking
> should only be used in emergency situations and the block should be
> short. An hour is usually enough IMO. I know you all know this already
> but it doesn't hurt to remind ourselves now and then.

Another tool we now have available for dealing with vandalism is
semi-protection; this allows established editors to edit, while protecting
targetted articles from IP vandalism.

Jay.


subject: [WikiEN-l] A thought about "in popular culture" sections

body:
On 2/17/06, Snowspinner <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> NOR has long been a bit slippery with fiction, both popular and
> literary. The problem is that by the most hardline interpretation of
> NOR, plot summaries of novels aren't allowed.

Not QUITE true; paraphrasing other people's citeable plot summaries
would be allowed.

> Unfortunately (or
> fortunately, depending on your perspective), bending NOR for
> fictional texts has led to things like the "in popular culture"
> sections. But unbending it is its own sort of problematic.

Ugh, yes.

-Matt


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikitech-l] RfC: InstantCommons

body:
As with Multilingual MediaWiki, Gerard and I may have funding for this
project, so I'd appreciate some feedback on the draft specs here:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/InstantCommons

The idea is to make Commons content easily available to any MediaWiki
installation. The main questions I'd appreciate comments on:

1) The best method to transparently download content in the background
that can easily be implemented in PHP without (too many) dependencies.

2) What other scalability issues beyond the ones discussed in the specs
there may be.

3) How thumbnail-generation of images where no client-side conversion
capabilities exist should be managed (notably SVG).

4) Whether Media: links should be handled in the way described or
differently.

Regards,
Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposal: Task forces

body:
On 2/17/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net> wrote in
> message news:43F5097B.9070104 at telus.net...
> > So much of this tries to put old whine in new bottles.
>
> If this is a typo, it's serendipitous in the extreme: how much of the
> traffic on this mailing list could accurately be described thus?.

Reminds me of an old joke: How do you tell the difference between an
elephant and a grape? Jump up and down on it for a while. If you get a
little whine, it's an elephant...

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia merchandise

references:
<2b76523c0602160023t7bb0cb20n40a38e5d108254ce@mail.gmail.com>
	<dt1sij$frg$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<8b722b800602160634l40a1c575i9d2cd9deb72811d7@mail.gmail.com>
	<dt24jv$dsk$1@sea.gmane.org> <dt3uj8$cfo$2@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 2/17/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I asked Brion...
>
> He said "if it was created less than 3 or so months ago it won't be in
> internal search, as that's been broken not updating for a while"
>
> So, that's not a bug, that's a feature :-)

That was sort of my point in my other email. How is it that Wikipedia
has a search feature that is "broken" and "not updating for a while"?

<insert long spiel about how important the search function is for
wikipedia users here>

Steve


from_name: Snowspinner

body:
I would like to see all userboxes done through substitution instead
of making TfD weep openly, which this would do.

-Phil

On Feb 17, 2006, at 10:48 AM, David Gerard wrote:

> I've suggested this on the workshop page of the Tony Sidaway RFAr
> (which is basically the AC case that had *better* deal conclusively
> with the userbox issue) and I present it here for your esteemed
> dissection.
>
> Ignoring procedural matters (the AC has yet to make policy that it
> isn't damn sure  is already consensus), here's a proposal:
>
> "The Arbcom recommends to Jimbo a declaration as policy:
> * Rather than permitting all userboxes and disallowing only the worst
> ones, policy shall follow the model on de: and move to certain
> userboxes being permitted and all others limited or forbidden.
> * Userboxes for human languages spoken and for geographic location are
> unlimited.
> * A user may display three other userboxes, whether by template, page
> transclusion, code substitution, image or other means. Other userboxes
> may be subject to deletion discussion on WP:TFD, except those
> susceptible to speedy deletion under T1."
>
> Cutting the Gordian knot.
> * de: has Babel and location only and has yet to collapse in user
> civil war. I deliberately didn't include "and others per community
> consensus" as
>     (a) purported "community consensus" going against the actual aims
> of the project was how we got into this mess;
>     (b) any attempted "community consensus" on the subject of
> userboxes has become a festering mess of sockpuppets, meatpuppets,
> getting the vote out, wheel warring, process-addict querulousness
> versus hipshooting IAR and several multi-volume fantasy epics' worth
> of flamewars.
> * The "or other means" takes care of the userbox warriors.
> * Where you take bad userboxes to kill them is spelt out.
>
> Note also that my own userpage would presently fall afoul of this one.
>
> Please discuss.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Stan Shebs

body:
Fastfission wrote:

>The question of whether "in popular culture" or "trivia" sections
>should be included in articles has been raised many times, and I don't
>want to hash over the whole debate again (My version of the
>discussions is something like: "Are they encyclopedic?" "Maybe not,
>but it's the only way some people can contribute. Also, it makes us
>more hip and up to date than EB." "Well, I think they are crap."
>"Well, we agree to disagree.").
>
>But I had a recent thought about it. Wouldn't any discussions about
>the impact or prevalence of something in popular culture need to have
>been discussed by a secondary source first before it was allowed into
>an article under WP:NOR?
>
Not exactly an original research issue, because the basic fact
of a mention is so easily verified. What would be harder would be
to answer the question of why - is the "Enola Gay" alluded to in
a Simpsons episode because it's funny somehow, or because there
is a subtle political dig, or because Groening's grandfather was
in the ground crew and the episode originally aired on grandpa's
birthday? That would need some research and a source.

A useful way to control the random references might be to require
evidence of relevance. Lots of pop culture references aren't any
deeper than random selection on the part of a scriptwriter
desperately trying to think of a three syllable name. Mention of
all the uses of a particular name is appropriate for disambig pages,
but contentwise may be a coincidence rather than an "in popular
culture" reference. So to put it all together, you should be able
to prune popular culture references that don't actually have a
source demonstrating relevance, or move them to disambig pages.

Stan


body:
On Feb 17, 2006, at 11:08 AM, geni wrote:

>
> Fair use is difficult enough to sort out as it is. If they are useing
> un subst templates I can kill the fair use vio in seconds. Otherwise I
> have to go through every person with the image on their user page and
> ask them to remove it.

This could be the proper occasion for a more technical solution to
the fair use problem. Something like a checkbox-based flag on image
pages to the effect of "this is a free image" and something that
forcibly prevents those images from being added or displayed in the
userspace.

-Phil


from_name: dalbury at bellsouth.net

body:
It would mean that my lists of things to do, lists of things I have done, useful links, and suspense lists of tags I've put on articles would have to go somewhere else, probably killing portability for those items.
>
> From: Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com>
> Date: 2006/02/17 Fri AM 11:32:48 EST
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Userboxes: A radical proposal
>
> Hi,
>   What is the worst possible thing that could happen if we removed
> userpages altogether? Not user talk pages, but "hands off it's mine"
> user pages.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On 2/17/06, BJ?rn Lindqvist <bjourne at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > Where I live, any of the following posters would "provoke righteous
> > > outrage from a fairly large proportion of the community: "I'm a
> > > pedophile", "I'm a Nazi", "I'm a socialist", "I'm a racist", "I'm a
> > > communist", "I'm a Jew", "I'm a Muslim", "I'm a American", "I'm a
> >
> > "I'm a Muslim" is offensive? Eep.
>
> I did not write that. I wrote that such a poster would "provoke
> righteous outrage from a fairly large proportion of the community."
> Muslim, just like all the other epithets I listed, is information and
> carries no moral value.

"Jew", "Muslim", and "American" are now "epithets", similar to "Nazi",
"racist" and "pedophile"?  And there's "no moral value" associated with
being a pedophile or a racist or a Nazi?

Amazing.

Jay.


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikipedia-l] [Fwd: Digital Communities / Prix Ars Electronica 2006]

body:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Digital Communities / Prix Ars Electronica 2006
Date: 	Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:04:26 +0100
From: 	AEC Communities <communities at prixars.aec.at>
To: 	<jwales at wikia.com>

Dear Jimmy,

For the third time, Prix Ars Electronica, the foremost international
prize for computer-based art, is starting its call for entries for
"Digital Communities" projects. The category "Digital Communities" has
been a great success in its 2004 and 2005 editions and is singling out
for recognition projects of great sociopolitical relevance.

The Digital Communities category is open to political, social and
cultural projects, initiatives, groups and scenes from all over the
world that display contentious commitment in coming up with smart,
successful ways of deploying digital technologies to solve social
problems. Particular emphasis is placed on a project?s degree of
community innovation, its sustainability and its use of technology in a
way that makes good sense and is attuned to the needs of the people
meant to benefit from it. Digital Communities projects should make it
easier for people to access technology, networks and the Digital Commons.

We would like to ask you to help us "spread the word" in your community
by circulating the information as widely as possible. We also would be
very glad if you could help us identify some projects, which in your
opinion should participate in the competition.

For a detailed description of the category, please consult our
website___ <http://www.aec.at/en/prix/communities/communities.asp>_.

Find the winners of 2004 at
___<http://www.aec.at/en/prix/communities/winners2004.asp>_
and winners of 2005 at
_http://www.aec.at/en/prix/communities/winners2005.asp
<http://www.aec.at/en/prix/communities/winners2004.asp>_

If you need any further information or support, please do not hesitate
to come back to me.

Yours sincerely,

Ingrid Fischer-Schreiber

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################


body:
>
> From: BJ?rn Lindqvist <bjourne at gmail.com>
> Date: 2006/02/17 Fri AM 11:50:17 EST
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Arbcom has completely lost its mind
>
> If Wikipedia isn't mine, then who owns it? Who gets to decide whether
> publishing "I am a fish" on your user page is allowed or not? Why
> doesn't my opinion carry as much weight as the next one? AFAIK there
> is no Wikipedia-rule against writing pedophile on your user page. I
> thought that was the whole reason for this email thread.

The Foundation owns Wikipedia.

> Most constitutions (the one in the US for example) explicitly
> guarantees every citizens right to free speech. Most countries also
> have laws that makes saying and publishing certain things illegal. In
> most countries with "free speech," you are allowed to put "almost any
> poster you want on your front door." Similarly, Wikipedia allows you
> to put almost any description of yourself you want on your user page.

No. The U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from restricting ''free speech''. The courts have extended that to state and local governments. There is no protection of free speech on private property, such as the servers on which Wikipedia is hosted. Try going to a shopping mall and lecturing the shoppers in favor of a position that is not popular in your community.


body:
I think we need  to continue to assume good faith on the part of our
users. That they can use userboxes appropriately and that we can
address the question of disruptive userboxes together and find
reasonable solutions to the problems they pose.

Fred

On Feb 17, 2006, at 10:17 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:

> On 2/17/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>
>> We could loose the faith of our users that we could make reasonable
>> decisions.
>>
>
> We seem to have already lost faith in our users that they can make
> reasonable decisions for themselves. (Assuming you agree with the
> userboxes are evil line of thinking)
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Theresa Knott

body:
> I take this to mean that registered users are also blocked if their IP
> address is blocked.

Yep that's exactly what happens.

>Is this desirable? Can it be changed?

Personally i would like the option to be able to unblock registered
users if thier find their IP blocked without unblocking everyone else
I have no idea if it's possible though.

Admins should bear in mind collateral damage like this though when
blocking. Shared IPs should be dealt with by reverting. Blocking
should only be used in emergency situations and the block should be
short. An hour is usually enough IMO. I know you all know this already
but it doesn't hurt to remind ourselves now and then.

Theresa
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
I find Mark Gallegher's response to this suggestion very appropriate.
This is how I relate to user pages. I see an edit by an unfamiliar
name.  I wonder, "What is this user about?" I go to their user page
and if they have an expressive page I can get a quick grasp of who we
are dealing with. They same thing can be done by looking at a few
dozen edits, but either a well thought out or a nutty user page
usually tells all.

User pages are functional and serve the purpose of the project.

Fred

On Feb 17, 2006, at 12:05 PM, Mark Gallagher wrote:

>
> G'day Steve,
>
>
>>   What is the worst possible thing that could happen if we removed
>> userpages altogether? Not user talk pages, but "hands off it's mine"
>> user pages.
>>
>
> I find userpages very useful.  They often give me an idea of how a
> user
> approaches Wikipedia, and through that what they'll probably be
> like to
> interact with: do they take pride in their contributions (brag lists,
> etc.), are they good with fiddling with wikicode (pretty
> userpages), are
> they generally practical and edit-oriented (impersonal userpage,
> with a
> list of reminders, useful templates, etc.), are they kooks (userpage
> full of ravings, foul-mouthed comments about The Beatles and Queen
> Brenda, etc.), are they confident users (a userpage that says "I'm new
> here and don't know my way around", probably means "no"), are they
> silly
> sausages (a userpage with hundreds of userboxen, many of which aren't
> even applicable but look pretty, what with all those fair use images),
> where are they from and how provincial are they ... you get the idea.
>
> I could probably live with losing my own userpage.  It's not really
> doing all /that/ much that's useful.  However, I'd like to hang on to
> the userpages of others ...
>
>
> --
> Mark Gallagher
> "What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
> - Danger Mouse
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.10/263 - Release Date:
> 16/02/2006
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Fastfission

body:
The question of whether "in popular culture" or "trivia" sections
should be included in articles has been raised many times, and I don't
want to hash over the whole debate again (My version of the
discussions is something like: "Are they encyclopedic?" "Maybe not,
but it's the only way some people can contribute. Also, it makes us
more hip and up to date than EB." "Well, I think they are crap."
"Well, we agree to disagree.").

But I had a recent thought about it. Wouldn't any discussions about
the impact or prevalence of something in popular culture need to have
been discussed by a secondary source first before it was allowed into
an article under WP:NOR?

What I'm basically proposing is perhaps one way to deal with it (that
a draconian, anti-"in popular culture" person like me would be happy
with) would be to restrict such sections or articles to places where
there exists a secondary source literature on the subject.

For example, [[Nuclear weapon in popular culture]] -- not the best
article, admittedly, but there has been ample writing on the subject
by scholars, including general appearance and trends of nuclear
weapons motifs in popular culture, and even specific analysis of the
apperance of nuclear weapons in cinema. Satisifies WP:NOR without any
problem, in the hypothetical (exact contents still probably need some
work).

But [[Space colonization in popular culture]] has no such sources
listed. It is a more common article of this sort, based most likely on
an overgrown "in popular culture" section of an article on space
colonization. Does this constitute "original research" as laid out in
WP:NOR?

Other articles of this sort include [[A-10 Thunderbolt II in popular
culture]], [[Amateur radio in popular culture]], and [[Fullerenes in
popular culture]], to pick a few at random. An article which
*probably* wouldn't be NOR -- though it doesn't have any secondary
sources of the sort I am talking about listed -- would be [[Heroin in
popular culture]], a subject which I imagine people have probably
written about extensively given the amount of literature and film
which have be based on heroin-related topics.

Just a thought I had -- not a crusade in any sense -- that I thought I
would float on here. I understand I'm a bit cranky on this subject, no
doubt due to my personal feeling that an encyclopedia article on the
[[Enola Gay]] should not be forced to referenced the fact that Krusty
the Klown had an airplane called the "I'm-on-a-Rolla'-Gay" in one
episode of "the Simpsons", but I am not trying to be a hard-ass on the
subject, and recognize it is not the most pressing problem.

FF


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia merchandise

body:
Ben Yates wrote:
> On the subject of the logo: I threw it together myself, in a vector
> program.  I know it's important for wikipedia/media to have a
> tightly-bound visual identity, but I couldn't see myself wearing any
> of the curernt logos (and wikipedia's, at least, is much too detailed
> to be plot printed).
>

Slightly off-topic, but are you involved in the New Wikisource Logo
discussion (http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:New_Wikisource_logo)?

--
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: 550 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060217/2abfd4af/attachment.pgp


body:
On Feb 17, 2006, at 12:47 PM, Fastfission wrote:
>
> But I had a recent thought about it. Wouldn't any discussions about
> the impact or prevalence of something in popular culture need to have
> been discussed by a secondary source first before it was allowed into
> an article under WP:NOR?

NOR has long been a bit slippery with fiction, both popular and
literary. The problem is that by the most hardline interpretation of
NOR, plot summaries of novels aren't allowed. Unfortunately (or
fortunately, depending on your perspective), bending NOR for
fictional texts has led to things like the "in popular culture"
sections. But unbending it is its own sort of problematic.

-Phil


body:
On Feb 17, 2006, at 1:01 PM, Matt Brown wrote:
>
> Not QUITE true; paraphrasing other people's citeable plot summaries
> would be allowed.

Indeed, but let's face it - the majority of novels do not have these.

-Phil


body:
On 2/17/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> This IP address has been involved in a lot of vandalism. Since you seem to
> be a legitimate editor, I am unblocking this IP address. However I would
> strongly urge you to seek counseling for internet addiction.

I take this to mean that registered users are also blocked if their IP
address is blocked. Is this desirable? Can it be changed?

Steve


body:
"Theresa Knott" <theresaknott at gmail.com> wrote
in message
news:1bfe3eb0602170441t21d76180le9da0ba286eeb830 at mail.gmail.com...
>> I take this to mean that registered users are also blocked if their IP
>> address is blocked.
> Yep that's exactly what happens.
>>Is this desirable? Can it be changed?
> Personally i would like the option to be able to unblock registered
> users if thier find their IP blocked without unblocking everyone else
> I have no idea if it's possible though.

I'm sure I recall someone saying it should be, it's simply a matter of
giving a dev sufficient time and coffee to get it done :-)

> Admins should bear in mind collateral damage like this though when
> blocking. Shared IPs should be dealt with by reverting. Blocking
> should only be used in emergency situations and the block should be
> short. An hour is usually enough IMO. I know you all know this already
> but it doesn't hurt to remind ourselves now and then.

Don't we have a standard notice which we can put on shared-ip pages to
notify admins when they check on vandals?

Yep: {{SharedIP}}

Maybe we could leverage that a bit...

HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: Mark Wagner

body:
On 2/17/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>   What is the worst possible thing that could happen if we removed
> userpages altogether? Not user talk pages, but "hands off it's mine"
> user pages.

I'd lose:
*My statement of multi-licensing into the public domain
*My list of useful templates
*My list of copyright-related links
*OrphanBot's bot ownership statement
*The description of what OrphanBot does and does not do
*The custom messages that OrphanBot uses when notifying an uploader

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia merchandise

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 2/17/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>I asked Brion...
>>
>>He said "if it was created less than 3 or so months ago it won't be in
>>internal search, as that's been broken not updating for a while"
>>
>>So, that's not a bug, that's a feature :-)
>
>
> That was sort of my point in my other email. How is it that Wikipedia
> has a search feature that is "broken" and "not updating for a while"?
>
> <insert long spiel about how important the search function is for
> wikipedia users here>
>
> Steve

Just... too much to do :-( and on too many fronts...


from_name: Sam Fentress (Asbestos)

body:
On 2/17/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>   What is the worst possible thing that could happen if we removed
> userpages altogether? Not user talk pages, but "hands off it's mine"
> user pages.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

It would solve nothing at all: The userboxes would just go on the User talk
page.
Talk page headers and the like are just as "hands off" as User pages.

Sam

--
Asbestos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Asbestos


from_name: Guy Chapman

body:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:20:28 +0100, you wrote:

>I still fail to see how writing pedophile on your user page has
>anything in common with shouting "Fire!" in a crowded cinema.

I'd say the weeks of debate provoked by doing that has shown beyond
doubt that it is every bit as disruptive, but what do I know?

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken


from_name: Philip Welch

body:
> Most constitutions (the one in the US for example) explicitly
> guarantees every citizens right to free speech. Most countries also
> have laws that makes saying and publishing certain things illegal. In
> most countries with "free speech," you are allowed to put "almost any
> poster you want on your front door." Similarly, Wikipedia allows you
> to put almost any description of yourself you want on your user page.
>
> Quite the contrary, it is important to emphasize that there is no
> protection for offensiveness for anyone.

I don't know what you do for a living, but suppose you have an office
at work. Do you get to put "almost any poster you want" on the front
door of your office? Not at any workplace I've ever known of.

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


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia merchandise

body:
On 2/17/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> <insert short spiel about how you can use Google with
> site:en.wikipedia.org as the first search term>

I was kind of hoping no one would actually suggest that as the
appropriate workaround. Yes, you're right. It works. But it's kludgy,
and we can do better than that.

Steve


from_name: Rula Sayaf

subject: [Wikitech-l] Offering my help

body:
Hello,
I'm a software and information systems engineer, and I'm from Syria.
I'm really impressed by the huge work you are doing in Wikipedia, and I'd
like to contribute with you.
What I'm offering is to translate as many articles as I can per week into
arabic, especially those information technology related.
Besides I can do some programming or even documentation if you want some
help in those sections
And if you have any other ideas, please let me know.

Hope to hear from you soon.

Rula Sayaf.


from_name: BJörn Lindqvist

body:
> > You don't have a userpage in order to exercise any "right" to
> > free speech, but because it helps the project; it aids
> > communication and makes people happy.  You never did have the
> > right to say anything you pleased there; disruptiveness has
> > always been unacceptable.
> >
> > There's nothing particularly new about that proposed finding.
>
> A common example is that while you have a right to freedom of speech, you
> don't have the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded cinema.

I fail to see the similarity. Someone shouting "Fire!" in a crowded
cinema is likely to cause lots of panic and angst as hundreds of movie
goers all try to reach the fire exists. In the rush some might be
injured or even die due to suffocation or being trampled to death.
Peoples valuables might be looted and for sure, they will all have
their movie experience destroyed.

I still fail to see how writing pedophile on your user page has
anything in common with shouting "Fire!" in a crowded cinema.

> If something on a userpage cause disruption and offence, then it should be
> removed. After all we are a community, and sometimes small individual

What you are saying is that the word pedophile causes disruption and
offence. If that is true then this email thread must have almost
disrupted Wikipedia to death since it contains so many instances of
pedophile. I'd say that words by themselves neither cause disruption
nor offence. It is people that willfully participates in the act of
being offended or disrupted. You can't remove your responsibility for
your own thoughts and place it on some word.

> freedoms get sacrificed for the common good. This is going to apply to any
> community above a certain size, and I would find it hard to imagine any
> community similar to this one where putting an "I am a paedophile" poster up
> on your front door is not going to provoke righteous outrage from a fairly
> large proportion of the community.

Where I live, any of the following posters would "provoke righteous
outrage from a fairly large proportion of the community: "I'm a
pedophile", "I'm a Nazi", "I'm a socialist", "I'm a racist", "I'm a
communist", "I'm a Jew", "I'm a Muslim", "I'm a American", "I'm a
gay", "I'm hating you", "I'm liking your daughter", "I'm doing it with
your mum", "I'm better than you".... etc.. etc... etc...

But the awesome thing is that, despite the "righteous outrage" any of
those posters up my front door would "provoke," I'm still 100% free to
put them there. The law protects my right to put almost any poster I
want on my front door. Wikipedia works like that too. You might say
that the right to call yourself whatever you want is not necessary for
building an encyclopedia. I think you are wrong because an atmosphere
of free speech is necessary when trying to collect and organise all
the available information in the world.

> If the community, through the ArbCom, decides that a line has to be drawn,
> then we should accept it. We can discuss the precise location of the line,
> but I still think it needs to be drawn.

I agree. But I don't agree that the location of that line should be
more limiting than what US law permits.

--
mvh Bj?rn


body:
On 2/17/06, Jonathan <dzonatas at dzonux.net> wrote:
> Wikipedia obviously tests how pure it can stay as an open content
> structure. It has, unfortunately, by the nature of blocks shimmered away
> from being pure. Can we change this so it can stay purely open content?

Without presuming to speak for Wikipedia, it specifically disclaims
being any kind of experiment in anarchy, idealism etc (see
[[WP:NOT]]). Afaik, it's exactly as open as is useful for building an
encyclopaedia.

Steve


body:
On 2/17/06, BJ?rn Lindqvist <bjourne at gmail.com> wrote:
> I fail to see the similarity. Someone shouting "Fire!" in a crowded
> cinema is likely to cause lots of panic and angst as hundreds of movie
> goers all try to reach the fire exists. In the rush some might be
> injured or even die due to suffocation or being trampled to death.
> Peoples valuables might be looted and for sure, they will all have
> their movie experience destroyed.

You may prefer this analogy: You have the right to say "I am a fish".
You don't have the right to publish "I am a fish" on the front page of
your national newspaper. Why? It's not your newspaper. Wikipedia is
not yours either.

> pedophile. I'd say that words by themselves neither cause disruption
> nor offence. It is people that willfully participates in the act of

Words carry information. That information can be disruptive and
offensive. Let's not get too technical.

> being offended or disrupted. You can't remove your responsibility for
> your own thoughts and place it on some word.

I think using inflammatory language on a user page and claiming that
it's not offensive is a better example of "removing responsibility for
your own thoughts".

> Where I live, any of the following posters would "provoke righteous
> outrage from a fairly large proportion of the community: "I'm a
> pedophile", "I'm a Nazi", "I'm a socialist", "I'm a racist", "I'm a
> communist", "I'm a Jew", "I'm a Muslim", "I'm a American", "I'm a
> gay", "I'm hating you", "I'm liking your daughter", "I'm doing it with
> your mum", "I'm better than you".... etc.. etc... etc...

"I'm a Muslim" is offensive? Eep.

> put them there. The law protects my right to put almost any poster I
> want on my front door. Wikipedia works like that too. You might say
> that the right to call yourself whatever you want is not necessary for

That's where you're dead wrong. There is no implied or explicit right
to free speech. Quite the opposite - many policies limiting exactly
what you can and can't say.

Hopefully that clarifiies a bit.

Steve


from_name: David Gerard

body:
I've suggested this on the workshop page of the Tony Sidaway RFAr
(which is basically the AC case that had *better* deal conclusively
with the userbox issue) and I present it here for your esteemed
dissection.

Ignoring procedural matters (the AC has yet to make policy that it
isn't damn sure  is already consensus), here's a proposal:

"The Arbcom recommends to Jimbo a declaration as policy:
* Rather than permitting all userboxes and disallowing only the worst
ones, policy shall follow the model on de: and move to certain
userboxes being permitted and all others limited or forbidden.
* Userboxes for human languages spoken and for geographic location are
unlimited.
* A user may display three other userboxes, whether by template, page
transclusion, code substitution, image or other means. Other userboxes
may be subject to deletion discussion on WP:TFD, except those
susceptible to speedy deletion under T1."

Cutting the Gordian knot.
* de: has Babel and location only and has yet to collapse in user
civil war. I deliberately didn't include "and others per community
consensus" as
    (a) purported "community consensus" going against the actual aims
of the project was how we got into this mess;
    (b) any attempted "community consensus" on the subject of
userboxes has become a festering mess of sockpuppets, meatpuppets,
getting the vote out, wheel warring, process-addict querulousness
versus hipshooting IAR and several multi-volume fantasy epics' worth
of flamewars.
* The "or other means" takes care of the userbox warriors.
* Where you take bad userboxes to kill them is spelt out.

Note also that my own userpage would presently fall afoul of this one.

Please discuss.

- d.


from_name: geni

body:
On 2/17/06, Snowspinner <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> I would like to see all userboxes done through substitution instead
> of making TfD weep openly, which this would do.
>
> -Phil

Fair use is difficult enough to sort out as it is. If they are useing
un subst templates I can kill the fair use vio in seconds. Otherwise I
have to go through every person with the image on their user page and
ask them to remove it.

--
geni


body:
On Feb 17, 2006, at 4:03 PM, BJ?rn Lindqvist wrote:

> IANAL: In conventional IRL law you usually do not talk about rights.

I don't know where you live, but that's definitely *not* the case in,
say, the United States. In the United States, rights are a very
important part of law. In fact, the United States was founded based
upon the philosophical foundation that the *purpose* of law is to
protect people's rights. That's why the US Constitution has a "Bill
of Rights" that state, in no uncertain terms, that people have
certain rights that the government may not infringe upon. Most cases
that make it to the Supreme Court are concerned with what rights
people have and how those rights conflict or interact.

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


body:
On 2/17/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've suggested this on the workshop page of the Tony Sidaway RFAr
> (which is basically the AC case that had *better* deal conclusively
> with the userbox issue) and I present it here for your esteemed
> dissection.

I't won't it doesn't have enough coverage for that.

> "The Arbcom recommends to Jimbo a declaration as policy:
> * Rather than permitting all userboxes and disallowing only the worst
> ones, policy shall follow the model on de: and move to certain
> userboxes being permitted and all others limited or forbidden.
> * Userboxes for human languages spoken and for geographic location are
> unlimited.

Are timezones geographic locations?

> * A user may display three other userboxes, whether by template, page
> transclusion, code substitution, image or other means. Other userboxes
> may be subject to deletion discussion on WP:TFD,

Define userbox. Three is excessive and I'm claiming interlectal
property rights on the idea of multi issue userboxes (so no one can
use it)

>: except those
> susceptible to speedy deletion under T1."
>

T1 is an abuse of CSD.
> Cutting the Gordian knot.
> * de: has Babel and location only and has yet to collapse in user
> civil war. I deliberately didn't include "and others per community
> consensus" as
>    (a) purported "community consensus" going against the actual aims
> of the project was how we got into this mess;

I seem to recall it had something to do with a load of mass deletion
reducing the posibilty of rational negotation.

>    (b) any attempted "community consensus" on the subject of
> userboxes has become a festering mess of sockpuppets, meatpuppets,
> getting the vote out, wheel warring, process-addict querulousness
> versus hipshooting IAR and several multi-volume fantasy epics' worth
> of flamewars.

Yes it has made AFD seem quite peacful by comparision. Quite an
atchivement considering we appear to be being trolled by YTMND at the
moment.

> * The "or other means" takes care of the userbox warriors.

No it won't. Trust me on this. It will make their rule lawyering more
entertaining though.

> * Where you take bad userboxes to kill them is spelt out.

Userboxes are not killed. They are baked in an autocave then burried
under a mountian along with outher high level waste.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Userboxes: A rational proposal

body:
Stop worrying about userboxes and write an encyclopedia already. If
and when userboxes interfere with encyclopedia-writing activities,
react in an appropriately minimalist fashion and proceed with the
encyclopedia-writing.

Quite frankly, the userbox fans are *not* the people disrupting
Wikipedia with an unhealthy fixation with userboxes. This isn't to
say that they don't *have* an unhealthy userbox fixation, but rather,
that they engage in that fixation in a way that doesn't really
prevent the rest of us from writing an encyclopedia.

The people disrupting Wikipedia?that would be us, writing dozens of
messages to this listserv about them. Aren't we the people who
actually care about writing an encyclopedia? Then why don't we do
that, instead of wasting our time compiling statistics about
userboxes, trying to delete them, and debating the right way to do that?

You want to end the userbox war peacefully without screwing up the
community? Repeat after me: "It's not worth it, and I should go
mediate an NPOV dispute or do some research and write one of our
requested articles, or bring an article to FA status instead of
jousting with userbox-happy newbies."

And then actually do it.

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


body:
On 2/17/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>  What is the worst possible thing that could happen if we removed
> userpages altogether? Not user talk pages, but "hands off it's mine"
> user pages.
>
> Steve

I'd lose my list of things I want to keep track of and the area I use
to test various things. I'd also lose my partial list of canals
without pictures. I'd also lose the template text I use to inform
people they have been blocked under the three revert. Rule. That's
just me.

--
geni


body:
>>> Most constitutions (the one in the US for example) explicitly
>>> guarantees every citizens right to free speech. Most countries also
>>> have laws that makes saying and publishing certain things
>>> illegal. In
>>> most countries with "free speech," you are allowed to put "almost
>>> any
>>> poster you want on your front door." Similarly, Wikipedia allows you
>>> to put almost any description of yourself you want on your user
>>> page.
>>>
>>> Quite the contrary, it is important to emphasize that there is no
>>> protection for offensiveness for anyone.
>>
>> I don't know what you do for a living, but suppose you have an office
>> at work. Do you get to put "almost any poster you want" on the front
>> door of your office? Not at any workplace I've ever known of.
>
> This has been gone over before.
>
> Wikipedia is not a workplace and it is not workplace safe
> Wikipedia may be offensive to you
>
> Look in the mailing list archives for answers why Wikipedia must be
> like the two statements above for it to operate.

I don't know what you think Wikipedia is, but I always thought
Wikipedia was a project to write an encyclopedia. In that respect,
the Wikipedia: and User: namespaces are definitely like a workplace?
just as a workplace exists for the purpose of facilitating work, user
pages exist *for the purpose of facilitating the writing of an
encyclopedia*. I dunno, what do *you* think they're for?

As for "Wikipedia is not safe for work" and "Wikipedia may be
offensive to you", those refer to the *encyclopedia*, and they're
there because any compilation of the sum of human knowledge is bound
to contain information that will offend someone. That doesn't give us
license to offend *other contributors* for no good reason, when that
sort of offense gets in the way of our goal: to build an encyclopedia.

We have articles on racism, and those articles contain material
that's offensive simply because the fact that racism exists is a bad,
offensive thing that we are fully documenting. That doesn't give me
license to express racist opinions on talk pages or on my userpage--
if I do so, I'm getting in the way of building an encyclopedia by
pissing off the people I'm supposed to be collaborating with.

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


body:
On 2/17/06, Snowspinner <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> This could be the proper occasion for a more technical solution to
> the fair use problem. Something like a checkbox-based flag on image
> pages to the effect of "this is a free image" and something that
> forcibly prevents those images from being added or displayed in the
> userspace.
>
> -Phil

Maybe but until such code is in place my objection stands.

--
geni


body:
On 2/17/06, Jonathan <dzonatas at dzonux.net> wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> >On 2/17/06, Jonathan <dzonatas at dzonux.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Wikipedia obviously tests how pure it can stay as an open content
> >>structure. It has, unfortunately, by the nature of blocks shimmered away
> >>from being pure. Can we change this so it can stay purely open content?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Without presuming to speak for Wikipedia, it specifically disclaims
> >being any kind of experiment in anarchy, idealism etc (see
> >[[WP:NOT]]). Afaik, it's exactly as open as is useful for building an
> >encyclopaedia.
> >
> >Steve
> >
> Let me clarify "tests." Wikipedia is highly ranked within Alexa, so it
> is undoubtedly very popular. It provides a popular medium of
> communication. That medium is tested -- not the rules (i.e. anarchy,
> idealism, etc). It is obvious that medium is provided to build an
> encyclopedia, which is about knowledge. Knowledge is power. Would you
> want to see such power to be used as a social weapon. I don't want to
> "test" that.

Fairly safe to say that isn't true in this case. I blocked ammrow
quite a while ago.
--
geni


body:
On 2/17/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
> I would think that vocational boxes might be useful.  The fact that I
> was a submariner and am now civilian consultant working with the Navy
> /is/ relevant to my Wikipedia work, and is only offensive to people who
> are offended by anything related to the US military.
>
> Not that I have any userboxes related to those professions....

Then you can use one of your three userboxes to give this information.

--
geni


from_name: Habj

body:
The title of this email made me stunned. Fortunately, there was nothing
about Irish children in it.

/habj


body:
On 2/17/06, Snowspinner <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> > * A user may display three other userboxes, whether by template, page
> > transclusion, code substitution, image or other means. Other userboxes
> > may be subject to deletion discussion on WP:TFD, except those
> > susceptible to speedy deletion under T1."

You're going to want a very watertight definition of a userbox. Which
of these are userboxes:

I am Russian.

<big spammy box>I am Russian</big spammy box>

<big spammy box>I am Russian, live with my mother and hate
Catholics</big spammy box>

I have many beliefs, including:
<small discreet black outline>I don't like pedophiles</small discreet
black outline>

etc etc

Steve


from_name: Phil Boswell

body:
"David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote in
message news:fbad4e140602170748p759daf52s at mail.gmail.com...
> * A user may display three other userboxes, whether by template, page
> transclusion, code substitution, image or other means. Other userboxes
> may be subject to deletion discussion on WP:TFD, except those
> susceptible to speedy deletion under T1."

So am I only allowed to join three WikiProjects, or are we going to be able
to signal our membership of such by some "other means"?

What about the fact that I am an Admin? Does that fall within the three? I
can see perfectly reasonable usage falling foul of this rather tight limit
very speedily indeed :-(
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposed wheel warring policy

body:
At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Wikipedia:Proposed_wheel_warring_policy , discussion has died down
and we have three different proposed policies. So I'm taking it to a
straw poll. Feel free to register your support and opposition of the
policies proposed as well as your comments?depending on how this
goes, we'll decide the next step from there.

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


body:
Hi,
  What is the worst possible thing that could happen if we removed
userpages altogether? Not user talk pages, but "hands off it's mine"
user pages.

Steve


from_name: Bryan Derksen

body:
Habj wrote:
> The title of this email made me stunned. Fortunately, there was nothing
> about Irish children in it.
However, you now have me wondering what userboxes taste like.

I hope they taste of sunshine dust.


body:
> > goers all try to reach the fire exists. In the rush some might be
> > injured or even die due to suffocation or being trampled to death.
> > Peoples valuables might be looted and for sure, they will all have
> > their movie experience destroyed.
>
> You may prefer this analogy: You have the right to say "I am a fish".
> You don't have the right to publish "I am a fish" on the front page of
> your national newspaper. Why? It's not your newspaper. Wikipedia is
> not yours either.

If Wikipedia isn't mine, then who owns it? Who gets to decide whether
publishing "I am a fish" on your user page is allowed or not? Why
doesn't my opinion carry as much weight as the next one? AFAIK there
is no Wikipedia-rule against writing pedophile on your user page. I
thought that was the whole reason for this email thread.

> > pedophile. I'd say that words by themselves neither cause disruption
> > nor offence. It is people that willfully participates in the act of
>
> Words carry information. That information can be disruptive and
> offensive. Let's not get too technical.

Information has no moral value, it is neutral. It is the consumer of
the information that may *choose* to being disrupted or offended. Each
and everyone is responsible for how he or she interprets the
information and what "mood" that puts him or her in. Within reasonable
limits of course - false information, hatespeech and goatse is not
good and is not allowed on Wikipedia.

> > being offended or disrupted. You can't remove your responsibility for
> > your own thoughts and place it on some word.
>
> I think using inflammatory language on a user page and claiming that
> it's not offensive is a better example of "removing responsibility for
> your own thoughts".

No it isn't. Every Wikipedian is responsible for what he or she writes
on his or her user page. He or she is not responsible for how offended
readers of his or her user page *choose* to become.

> > Where I live, any of the following posters would "provoke righteous
> > outrage from a fairly large proportion of the community: "I'm a
> > pedophile", "I'm a Nazi", "I'm a socialist", "I'm a racist", "I'm a
> > communist", "I'm a Jew", "I'm a Muslim", "I'm a American", "I'm a
>
> "I'm a Muslim" is offensive? Eep.

I did not write that. I wrote that such a poster would "provoke
righteous outrage from a fairly large proportion of the community."
Muslim, just like all the other epithets I listed, is information and
carries no moral value.

> > put them there. The law protects my right to put almost any poster I
> > want on my front door. Wikipedia works like that too. You might say
> > that the right to call yourself whatever you want is not necessary for
>
> That's where you're dead wrong. There is no implied or explicit right
> to free speech. Quite the opposite - many policies limiting exactly
> what you can and can't say.

Most constitutions (the one in the US for example) explicitly
guarantees every citizens right to free speech. Most countries also
have laws that makes saying and publishing certain things illegal. In
most countries with "free speech," you are allowed to put "almost any
poster you want on your front door." Similarly, Wikipedia allows you
to put almost any description of yourself you want on your user page.

Quite the contrary, it is important to emphasize that there is no
protection for offensiveness for anyone.

--
mvh Bj?rn


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
Exactly, it is not user boxes, but offensive user boxes.

Fred

On Feb 17, 2006, at 5:38 PM, Philip Welch wrote:

> That doesn't give us
> license to offend *other contributors* for no good reason, when that
> sort of offense gets in the way of our goal: to build an encyclopedia.
>
> We have articles on racism, and those articles contain material
> that's offensive simply because the fact that racism exists is a bad,
> offensive thing that we are fully documenting. That doesn't give me
> license to express racist opinions on talk pages or on my userpage--
> if I do so, I'm getting in the way of building an encyclopedia by
> pissing off the people I'm supposed to be collaborating with.
>
> --
> Philip L. Welch
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


from_name: charles matthews

body:
"Steve Bennett"  wrote

> We seem to have already lost faith in our users that they can make
> reasonable decisions for themselves. (Assuming you agree with the
> userboxes are evil line of thinking)

I wouldn't see it like that.  There have always been some tensions around:
e.g. get on and write the 'Pedia versus having a public life here, to name
one which is not so contentious and where it is kind of obvious we need
both.  Equally we do need both of the wiki open door, and the right to throw
a few disruptive users back on the street.

What happens when things get out of kilter?  We seem to have reached a stage
where the granting of permissions, which  is at the heart of the wiki way,
is in tension with the assertion of rights.  Everyone here knows that the
permission to write on a page is quite distinct from the right to have your
POV on the page; this is Wikipedia 101.  The permission to write on one's
user page, together with the right to veto anyone else's contributions
there, is not a right 'of free speech' on a user page.  If people are making
decisions based on some assumed right of that kind, they are just completely
wrong.  This is not a feasible policy for Wikipedia.  The fact is that user
pages are not policed, except in egregious cases.  That is not a reason to
be confused about the basic situation.

Charles


body:
> >I still fail to see how writing pedophile on your user page has
> >anything in common with shouting "Fire!" in a crowded cinema.
>
> I'd say the weeks of debate provoked by doing that has shown beyond
> doubt that it is every bit as disruptive, but what do I know?

It has been shown beyond doubt that many people like to argue about
meaningless things on the Internet. But that's not news. And I really
don't think you or anyone else can blame the Wikipedia-pedophile for
us wasting time, can you?

--
mvh Bj?rn


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 17/02/06, Snowspinner <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 17, 2006, at 1:01 PM, Matt Brown wrote:
> >
> > Not QUITE true; paraphrasing other people's citeable plot summaries
> > would be allowed.
>
> Indeed, but let's face it - the majority of novels do not have these.

Book reviews.

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


from_name: Matt R

body:
--- Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:

> The question of whether "in popular culture" or "trivia" sections
> should be included in articles has been raised many times, and I don't
> want to hash over the whole debate again (My version of the
> discussions is something like: "Are they encyclopedic?" "Maybe not,
> but it's the only way some people can contribute. Also, it makes us
> more hip and up to date than EB." "Well, I think they are crap."
> "Well, we agree to disagree.")

I guess I would distinguish between "analysis" sections, and straight out "list
of trivia" or "list of pop culture references" sections. With the latter, an
alternative solution is to split out too-trivial stuff into a subarticle. We
did this with [[NSA in fiction]], to avoid having things like --

* In the 1999 Highlander: The Raven episode The Rogue, Bert Myers claims to be
from the NSA.
* In the 2000 Nintendo 64 video game Perfect Dark, Trent Easton, the corrupt
head of the agency, uses agents to do his dirty work.

cluttering up the main [[National Security Agency]] article.

I think it's a reasonable solution because A) no information is lost (which is
otherwise something that upsets many); and B) the main article on the topic is
better off for sticking to the important stuff.

Listing verifiable facts in an article like [[Space colonization in popular
culture]] is not an NOR problem, IMO.

-- Matt

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

___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Photos ? NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a photo http://uk.photos.yahoo.com


body:
--- Snowspinner <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2006, at 12:47 PM, Fastfission wrote:
> >
> > But I had a recent thought about it. Wouldn't any discussions about
> > the impact or prevalence of something in popular culture need to have
> > been discussed by a secondary source first before it was allowed into
> > an article under WP:NOR?
>
> NOR has long been a bit slippery with fiction, both popular and
> literary. The problem is that by the most hardline interpretation of
> NOR, plot summaries of novels aren't allowed.

That would be a very hard-line interpretation of NOR indeed. A plot summary is
very much like the everyday process of summarising a topic that goes on in
Wikipedia all the time. To summarise, to summarise is not original research.

-- Matt

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

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


body:
On 2/17/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> We could loose the faith of our users that we could make reasonable
> decisions.

We seem to have already lost faith in our users that they can make
reasonable decisions for themselves. (Assuming you agree with the
userboxes are evil line of thinking)

Steve


from_name: Adrian Buehlmann

body:
Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>  What is the worst possible thing that could happen if we removed
> userpages altogether? Not user talk pages, but "hands off it's mine"
> user pages.

Does this mean to remove user space altogether? Where do we put
the user talk pages then?

I would loose my template test sandboxes. This would hurt badly.

Adrian


body:
>>> IANAL: In conventional IRL law you usually do not talk about rights.
>>
>> I don't know where you live, but that's definitely *not* the case in,
>> say, the United States. In the United States, rights are a very
>> important part of law. In fact, the United States was founded based
>> upon the philosophical foundation that the *purpose* of law is to
>> protect people's rights. That's why the US Constitution has a "Bill
>> of Rights" that state, in no uncertain terms, that people have
>> certain rights that the government may not infringe upon. Most cases
>> that make it to the Supreme Court are concerned with what rights
>> people have and how those rights conflict or interact.
>
> Again IANAL but I believe you are right. But for normal trials in the
> US, is the constitution really involved? If you do something that the
> normal law does not forbid, but that the US Constitution doesn't
> guarantee your right to do, can the judicial system then decide
> whether doing so is legal or illegal?

That depends. First off, the US Constitution (specifically, the Ninth
Amendment) says that you have certain government-protected rights
above and beyond what the Constitution specifically protects. One
example that the courts have upheld is the "right to privacy", which
allows you to buy contraceptives, have an abortion, or have sex with
men without governmental interference.

So yes, in general, under US law you have the right to do anything as
long as you aren't committing a crime or a tort. You can't be
convicted of something that isn't expressly prohibited. (Where rights
come in is like this: if there's a law prohibiting having sex with
men, and you're convicted of it, you can take it to an appeals court,
and the court can decide that your constitutional right to privacy
invalidates the law against having sex with men.)

> Steve Bennet said that there is no given right to write whatever you
> want on your user page. I said that it hasn't been stated in any
> Wikipedia law that writing pedophile on your user page is forbidden.
> Considering those two facts (and no other facts such as "blatant
> trolling") I believe that a normal judicial system would *not* find
> writing pedophile on your user page forbidden. Yes?

Wikipedia is not a judicial system. It's a wiki, and a wiki that the
Wikimedia Foundation is unconditionally in charge of. If you don't
like it, take a database dump and start your own wiki.

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


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] What to do with IE55Fixes.css

body:
I would suspect the skin's PHP file will cause those to be included as
needed, similar to Monobook. Otherwise, the fixes aren't used and are
redundant; possible cause for which would be that the author copied
Monobook and didn't know about adding supplemental fixes.

Rob Church

On 17/02/06, thomas Armstrong <tarmstrong at gmail.com> wrote:
> I included even by hand:
> -------
> <link href="/skins/monobook/main.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
> <link href="/skins/monobook/IE60Fixes.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
> <script src="/skins/common/IEFixes.js" type="text/javacript" />
> --------
> and it doesn't work on IE 6.0 :(
>
> On 2/17/06, thomas Armstrong <tarmstrong at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > I've just downloaded a style from 'wikimedia.org'
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gallery_of_user_styles#FraternalRelief
> > and I'm not able to see it with IExplorer (it works ok with Firefox).
> >
> > This style includes some files called 'IE50Fixes.css',
> > 'IE55Fixes.css', but I've got
> > no clue about what to do with them.
> >
> > Any tip? Thank you very much.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: thomas Armstrong

body:
Hi.

I've just downloaded a style from 'wikimedia.org'
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gallery_of_user_styles#FraternalRelief
and I'm not able to see it with IExplorer (it works ok with Firefox).

This style includes some files called 'IE50Fixes.css',
'IE55Fixes.css', but I've got
no clue about what to do with them.

Any tip? Thank you very much.


from_name: Geoff Burling

body:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Habj wrote:

> The title of this email made me stunned. Fortunately, there was nothing
> about Irish children in it.
>
"A modest proposal" has been overused as the title of an essay. Much as
"X considered harmful".

Geoff


body:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Philip Welch wrote:

> Stop worrying about userboxes and write an encyclopedia already. If
> and when userboxes interfere with encyclopedia-writing activities,
> react in an appropriately minimalist fashion and proceed with the
> encyclopedia-writing.
>
> Quite frankly, the userbox fans are *not* the people disrupting
> Wikipedia with an unhealthy fixation with userboxes. This isn't to
> say that they don't *have* an unhealthy userbox fixation, but rather,
> that they engage in that fixation in a way that doesn't really
> prevent the rest of us from writing an encyclopedia.
>
> The people disrupting Wikipedia?that would be us, writing dozens of
> messages to this listserv about them. Aren't we the people who
> actually care about writing an encyclopedia? Then why don't we do
> that, instead of wasting our time compiling statistics about
> userboxes, trying to delete them, and debating the right way to do that?
>
> You want to end the userbox war peacefully without screwing up the
> community? Repeat after me: "It's not worth it, and I should go
> mediate an NPOV dispute or do some research and write one of our
> requested articles, or bring an article to FA status instead of
> jousting with userbox-happy newbies."
>
> And then actually do it.
>
Well said.

Geoff


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
On 2/17/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> So am I only allowed to join three WikiProjects, or are we going to be able
> to signal our membership of such by some "other means"?
>

Yes, write your name on the project page, and write the project name
on your userpage if you want.  It had never occurred to me that I
should be required to use a userbox to tell the world which projects
I'm a member of.


body:
On 2/17/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You're going to want a very watertight definition of a userbox.

Indeed. It would be a simple matter to produce a png file containing
an image of text and upload it to an image file.  It would be a
userbox, but not one used by transclusion.


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 2/17/06, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> What happens when things get out of kilter?  We seem to have reached a stage
> where the granting of permissions, which  is at the heart of the wiki way,
> is in tension with the assertion of rights.  Everyone here knows that the
> permission to write on a page is quite distinct from the right to have your
> POV on the page; this is Wikipedia 101.  The permission to write on one's
> user page, together with the right to veto anyone else's contributions
> there, is not a right 'of free speech' on a user page.  If people are making
> decisions based on some assumed right of that kind, they are just completely
> wrong.  This is not a feasible policy for Wikipedia.  The fact is that user
> pages are not policed, except in egregious cases.  That is not a reason to
> be confused about the basic situation.

Nicely put. So how do we go about telling people that they're welcome
here, but they are guests, and have no rights whatsoever?

Steve


body:
I included even by hand:
-------
<link href="/skins/monobook/main.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
<link href="/skins/monobook/IE60Fixes.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
<script src="/skins/common/IEFixes.js" type="text/javacript" />
--------
and it doesn't work on IE 6.0 :(

On 2/17/06, thomas Armstrong <tarmstrong at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I've just downloaded a style from 'wikimedia.org'
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gallery_of_user_styles#FraternalRelief
> and I'm not able to see it with IExplorer (it works ok with Firefox).
>
> This style includes some files called 'IE50Fixes.css',
> 'IE55Fixes.css', but I've got
> no clue about what to do with them.
>
> Any tip? Thank you very much.
>


body:
On 2/17/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> The question of whether "in popular culture" or "trivia" sections
> should be included in articles has been raised many times, and I don't
> want to hash over the whole debate again (My version of the
> discussions is something like: "Are they encyclopedic?" "Maybe not,
> but it's the only way some people can contribute. Also, it makes us
> more hip and up to date than EB." "Well, I think they are crap."
> "Well, we agree to disagree.").

You start here talking about "in popular culture" *sections* but drift
onto whole articles. IMHO, "X in popular culture" articles are fine,
but what I hate seeing is well written and researched articles poluted
by a bunch of "In Simpsons episode Y, Homer says "I'd like to eat an
X"" type garbage.

I suspect the solution is to try and surreptitiously isolate these
types of semi-welcome contributions. People get upset when their
contributions are rejected. Instead, by quietly pushing them into a "X
in popular culture" article, we can leave it up to reusers of
Wikipedia material whether they want to take all these articles or
not.

A similar problem exists in ever-growing lists. Take [[number sign]]
as an example. Once, it probably had a concise list of terms that are
used around the world, and was a useful reference for technical
writers (such as myself - I was looking for a less culturally biased
term than "hash" or "pound sign"). Since then it has been polluted by
unsourced additions like "splat", "widget mark" and even, I quote,
"Ken Moody, lecturer at the University of Cambridge, used to call it
"chickenscratch"".

If anyone has any great ideas for how to deal with these situations,
I'd like to hear them. The solution basically has to somehow
effectively discourage future editors from adding their own favourite
term, without slapping a rule in their face.

Cleaning out lists like this isn't even useful. Many people will
probably just look at it and go "oh my god, they don't even have
widget mark!!"

Steve


from_name: Michael Snow

body:
geni wrote:

>On 2/17/06, Snowspinner <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I would like to see all userboxes done through substitution instead
>>of making TfD weep openly, which this would do.
>>
>>-Phil
>>
>>
>Fair use is difficult enough to sort out as it is. If they are useing
>un subst templates I can kill the fair use vio in seconds. Otherwise I
>have to go through every person with the image on their user page and
>ask them to remove it.
>
>
If it's not fair use, don't ask, remove it for them. Then leave a
friendly note on their talk page explaining what you've done.

--Michael Snow


list: foundation-l

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Foundation-l] Semi-protection now enabled for all wikis

body:
I've gone ahead and enabled the semi-protection level for all of our wikis.

A total of 16 had already explicitly requested it over the last couple months,
and I haven't heard from any site asking to keep the option on.

Unless it's actually used by the admins on a given site, there's no change in
behavior; it's just a middle-level option now available between unprotected and
sysops-only.

-- 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/foundation-l/attachments/20060217/fb0e8dbc/attachment.pgp


body:
I've gone ahead and enabled the semi-protection level for all of our wikis.

A total of 16 had already explicitly requested it over the last couple months,
and I haven't heard from any site asking to keep the option on.

Unless it's actually used by the admins on a given site, there's no change in
behavior; it's just a middle-level option now available between unprotected and
sysops-only.

-- 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/foundation-l/attachments/20060217/fb0e8dbc/attachment-0001.pgp


list: wikimedia-l

body:
I've gone ahead and enabled the semi-protection level for all of our wikis.

A total of 16 had already explicitly requested it over the last couple months,
and I haven't heard from any site asking to keep the option on.

Unless it's actually used by the admins on a given site, there's no change in
behavior; it's just a middle-level option now available between unprotected and
sysops-only.

-- 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/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060217/fb0e8dbc/attachment.pgp>


body:
I've gone ahead and enabled the semi-protection level for all of our wikis.

A total of 16 had already explicitly requested it over the last couple months,
and I haven't heard from any site asking to keep the option on.

Unless it's actually used by the admins on a given site, there's no change in
behavior; it's just a middle-level option now available between unprotected and
sysops-only.

-- 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/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060217/fb0e8dbc/attachment-0001.pgp>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Semi-protection now enabled for all wikis

body:
I've gone ahead and enabled the semi-protection level for all of our wikis.

A total of 16 had already explicitly requested it over the last couple months,
and I haven't heard from any site asking to keep the option on.

Unless it's actually used by the admins on a given site, there's no change in
behavior; it's just a middle-level option now available between unprotected and
sysops-only.

-- 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/wikipedia-l/attachments/20060217/fb0e8dbc/attachment.pgp


subject: [Wikitech-l] Semi-protection now enabled for all wikis

body:
I've gone ahead and enabled the semi-protection level for all of our wikis.

A total of 16 had already explicitly requested it over the last couple months,
and I haven't heard from any site asking to keep the option on.

Unless it's actually used by the admins on a given site, there's no change in
behavior; it's just a middle-level option now available between unprotected and
sysops-only.

-- 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/20060217/fb0e8dbc/attachment.pgp>


subject:
[Foundation-l] [Wikipedia-l] Semi-protection now enabled for
	all wikis

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> A total of 16 had already explicitly requested it over the last couple months,
> and I haven't heard from any site asking to keep the option on.

'... asking to keep the option off', rather. :)

-- 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/foundation-l/attachments/20060217/6ba409d3/attachment.pgp


body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> A total of 16 had already explicitly requested it over the last couple months,
> and I haven't heard from any site asking to keep the option on.

'... asking to keep the option off', rather. :)

-- 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/foundation-l/attachments/20060217/6ba409d3/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> A total of 16 had already explicitly requested it over the last couple months,
> and I haven't heard from any site asking to keep the option on.

'... asking to keep the option off', rather. :)

-- 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/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060217/6ba409d3/attachment.pgp>


body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> A total of 16 had already explicitly requested it over the last couple months,
> and I haven't heard from any site asking to keep the option on.

'... asking to keep the option off', rather. :)

-- 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/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060217/6ba409d3/attachment-0001.pgp>


body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> A total of 16 had already explicitly requested it over the last couple months,
> and I haven't heard from any site asking to keep the option on.

'... asking to keep the option off', rather. :)

-- 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/wikipedia-l/attachments/20060217/6ba409d3/attachment.pgp


subject:
[Wikitech-l] [Wikipedia-l] Semi-protection now enabled for all
	wikis

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> A total of 16 had already explicitly requested it over the last couple months,
> and I haven't heard from any site asking to keep the option on.

'... asking to keep the option off', rather. :)

-- 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/20060217/6ba409d3/attachment.pgp>


body:
Steve Bennett wrote

> Nicely put. So how do we go about telling people that they're welcome
> here, but they are guests, and have no rights whatsoever?

Obviously there is a limit to slick formulations.  But for me, the point is
this: we give everyone a User Page (and that includes those who don't log
in) to show that WP thinks that to participate in the _project_ is to belong
to _it_; and not because WP thinks the _page_ belongs to _them_.  It's about
recognition, not property.

Charles


body:
On 2/17/06, BJ?rn Lindqvist <bjourne at gmail.com> wrote:
> If Wikipedia isn't mine, then who owns it? Who gets to decide whether
Wikipedia is, to the best of my knowledge, owned by the Wikimedia Foundation.

> publishing "I am a fish" on your user page is allowed or not? Why
Jimbo. He delegates most decision making on that to the community, but
definitely holds the final say.

> doesn't my opinion carry as much weight as the next one? AFAIK there
Not if Jimbo is the next one :)

> is no Wikipedia-rule against writing pedophile on your user page. I
> thought that was the whole reason for this email thread.

There isn't a rule against it, but it doesn't mean you have a right to
either. Well, that's my interpretation.

> Information has no moral value, it is neutral. It is the consumer of
> the information that may *choose* to being disrupted or offended. Each

Well that's one way of seeing it :)

> and everyone is responsible for how he or she interprets the
> information and what "mood" that puts him or her in. Within reasonable
> limits of course - false information, hatespeech and goatse is not
> good and is not allowed on Wikipedia.

Sure, I can wander down the street waving a stick and anyone who
"chooses" to get hit by it is responsible. Not a very useful model for
building a community IMHO.

> Most constitutions (the one in the US for example) explicitly
> guarantees every citizens right to free speech. Most countries also
> have laws that makes saying and publishing certain things illegal. In
> most countries with "free speech," you are allowed to put "almost any
> poster you want on your front door." Similarly, Wikipedia allows you
> to put almost any description of yourself you want on your user page.

I think you're mischaracterising free speech. You can say what you
want on the inside of *your* front door. I'm fairly certain that if
you wrote a detailed plan for assassinating the president on the
outside of your front door, you would regret it once the police found
out.

> Quite the contrary, it is important to emphasize that there is no
> protection for offensiveness for anyone.

Not true. We have policies for civility and that includes not using
offensive language, personal attacks etc. We don't guarantee anyone a
swearword-free environment, but we do try and make it pleasant.

Steve


body:
G'day Mark (and commiserations for living in Canberra :))),

I wasn't denying that they're useful. But what's the worst possible
outcome if they weren't there? In your case, how would you form
impressions of others? I suspect that user contributions and talk page
are pretty informative...

Steve

On 2/17/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>
> G'day Steve,
>
> >   What is the worst possible thing that could happen if we removed
> > userpages altogether? Not user talk pages, but "hands off it's mine"
> > user pages.
>
> I find userpages very useful.  They often give me an idea of how a user
> approaches Wikipedia, and through that what they'll probably be like to
> interact with: do they take pride in their contributions (brag lists,
> etc.), are they good with fiddling with wikicode (pretty userpages), are
> they generally practical and edit-oriented (impersonal userpage, with a
> list of reminders, useful templates, etc.), are they kooks (userpage
> full of ravings, foul-mouthed comments about The Beatles and Queen
> Brenda, etc.), are they confident users (a userpage that says "I'm new
> here and don't know my way around", probably means "no"), are they silly
> sausages (a userpage with hundreds of userboxen, many of which aren't
> even applicable but look pretty, what with all those fair use images),
> where are they from and how provincial are they ... you get the idea.
>
> I could probably live with losing my own userpage.  It's not really
> doing all /that/ much that's useful.  However, I'd like to hang on to
> the userpages of others ...


from_name: Jimmy Wales

body:
Stephen Bain wrote:
> On 2/18/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Nicely put. So how do we go about telling people that they're welcome
>>here, but they are guests, and have no rights whatsoever?
>
> Include a big picture of an open door in the welcome message, and
> gently remind them that it's just as easy for us to kick them out
> through a big open door as it is for them to walk in (prize for
> someone who can put this in a non-biting way?).

The Germans have a nice way of putting it on the front page:

"Gute Autorinnen und Autoren sind immer willkommen ? die ersten Schritte
sind ganz einfach."

This means:

"Good authors are always welcome - the first steps are quite easy!"

Contrast with the English:

"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

I am not advocating a change (nor opposing it); I am just making an
observation.

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################


from_name: Sam Korn

body:
On 2/17/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> "Jew", "Muslim", and "American" are now "epithets", similar to "Nazi",
> "racist" and "pedophile"?  And there's "no moral value" associated with
> being a pedophile or a racist or a Nazi?

"American" and "Muslim" are epithets along the lines of "Nazi" and
"paedophile"?  As Steve Bennett said, eep.

--
Sam


body:
On 2/17/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> I find Mark Gallegher's response to this suggestion very appropriate.
> This is how I relate to user pages. I see an edit by an unfamiliar
> name.  I wonder, "What is this user about?" I go to their user page
> and if they have an expressive page I can get a quick grasp of who we
> are dealing with. They same thing can be done by looking at a few
> dozen edits, but either a well thought out or a nutty user page
> usually tells all.

This is interesting. I confess to never doing this at all (which makes
me totally unqualified to participate in a debate on userpages, never
having seen more than about 2 or 3 :)). I seem to form my impressions
by what people say on talk pages, or occasionally what other people
have said on their talk pages. I'm somewhat wary of the great discord
that can exist between what people say they do, and what they actually
do. Wikipedia is one of the rare instances where you can quickly check
what people actually do.

Steve


body:
On 2/17/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> I take this to mean that registered users are also blocked if their IP
> address is blocked. Is this desirable? Can it be changed?

Bugzilla bug 550.

--
Sam


from_name: Justin Cormack

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Plot summaries: was Re: A thought about "in popular
	culture" sections

body:
On 17 Feb 2006, at 18:07, Andrew Gray wrote:

> On 17/02/06, Snowspinner <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 17, 2006, at 1:01 PM, Matt Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> Not QUITE true; paraphrasing other people's citeable plot summaries
>>> would be allowed.
>>
>> Indeed, but let's face it - the majority of novels do not have these.
>
> Book reviews.

I dont see summarising the plot of a novel is OR, no more than picking
out the salient facts from a biography is.

Justinc


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia merchandise

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 2/17/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>I asked Brion...
>>
>>He said "if it was created less than 3 or so months ago it won't be in
>>internal search, as that's been broken not updating for a while"
>>
>>So, that's not a bug, that's a feature :-)
>
>
> That was sort of my point in my other email. How is it that Wikipedia
> has a search feature that is "broken" and "not updating for a while"?
>
> <insert long spiel about how important the search function is for
> wikipedia users here>
>

<insert short spiel about how you can use Google with
site:en.wikipedia.org as the first search term>

--
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: 550 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060217/6f76e5cc/attachment.pgp


body:
On 2/17/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>
> User pages are functional and serve the purpose of the project.

Oh defo.  Having said that, I got rid of my actual front page and
redirected it to the talk page.  People can get a pretty good picture
of what I'm about *in the wikipedia context* from my interactions, and
for people who want more there are heaps and heaps of subpages with
all kinds of stuff.  Contact lists, old watchlists, sandboxes, all
kinds of stuff.

An advantage of collapsing user and talk pages into one is that it
immediately simplifies your signature. There's only one page to link
to.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Habj wrote:

>The title of this email made me stunned. Fortunately, there was nothing
>about Irish children in it.
>
Like the parents who would originally have been so unburthened, we are
not so Swiftly freed of this problem.

Ec


body:
Bryan Derksen wrote:

>Habj wrote:
>
>
>>The title of this email made me stunned. Fortunately, there was nothing
>>about Irish children in it.
>>
>>
>However, you now have me wondering what userboxes taste like.
>
Like raw children in the Fields.

Ec