body:
The Arbitrators should become "moderators".  When a moderator becomes
aware of an issue, he should try to resolve it by communicating with
the party or parties concerned.    If he cannot, he should simply go
to the other moderators and say (in effect): "The facts are such and
such.   Here is what I have tried to resolve it; but it hasn't worked.
 I propose that we impose such-and-such sanction.   The other
moderators should then just vote over the course of a few days, and
the decision should be implemented.   There is no need for the
deliberation to be formal, long, or even public.   Decisions should
just be announced on the Administrator noticeboard, which is also
where people might go to get the Moderators attention for problems.
There would probably need to be some system so that several Moderators
didn't work the same problems and get in each other's way.   The
process should be very fast with a minimum of nonsense.   The AC
replaces Jimmy and I am sure that Jimmy didn't go through all of this
laughable legaiistic claptrap when he was making his decisions.


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: David Gerard

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Saterlandic Frisian Wikipedia + thoughts on small
	language wikipedias in general

body:
Boris Lohnzweiger wrote:

> But what is an encyclopia supposed to be? Me, I think any encyclopedia
 > - printed or online - should serve as a  _comprehensive_and_reliable_
 > source of information. Otherwhise it's useless. Imagine you go about
 > looking up something in a printed encyclopedia only to find out it lacks
 > some article it definetly ought to contain. I'd probably throw that book
 > into the nearest trash can. Now how many articles does an encyclopedia
 > need to be useful for the reader? I suppose the world's most renowned
 > encyclopedias all contain 100,000+ articles. More compact versions do
 > exist, but I seriously doubt that any book with less than 10,000 articles
 > could ever provide a useful amount of information from all fields of
 > knowledge.

To this end, you might like to look at:

[[:meta:List of articles all languages should have]]
[[:simple:List of articles all languages should have]]

These are lists of a thousand or so articles that someone wanting to set
up a new Wikipedia can use as a start to fill out their encyclopedia.

- d.


list: wikien-l

subject: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom - too attached to 'equal treatment'?

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

> Indeed. Having said that, I think arbcom must take great care to afford
> all involved in a case an opportunity to give evidence in their defense.
> Towards the end of the recent Robert the Bruce case, it emerged that one
> innocent third party named by Robert the Bruce as a sock puppet only heard
> of this accusation by accident.  He had not been involved in the
> arbitration case at all except by being named, unknown to him, by one of
> the parties.  A sock puppet check was ordered on him without his
> knowledge.

Yeah. I should add also that the AC is not perfect.

Mind you, sockpuppet checks are not IMO themselves an intrusion, as we
do take care not to give the details, e.g. "technical evidence shows".
Privacy is important.

> In cases of sock puppet accusations sometimes the accused may be able to,
> and certainly should always be given the opportunity to, convince the
> arbitrators that he is not a sock puppet.  Many people use AOL which I
> understand uses a round-robin web proxy system, so it would be quite easy
> for two people with ostensible similarities in their patterns of Wiki
> usage to be mistaken for sock puppets.

We are *keenly* aware of the anoying case of AOL ...

Sockpuppetry is usually flagged through a remarkable similarity in
edits and favourite topics. Occasionally when a noted sockpuppeteer
starts throwing around spurious allegations of sockpuppetry against his
detractors. Writing and editing styles are what's telling; technical
evidence is only a corroboration.

- d.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Rules, expertise, and encyclopedic standards

body:
JAY JG wrote:

>> From: "Charles Matthews" <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
>>
>> JAY JG wrote
>>
>> > Perhaps the [[Wikipedia:No original research]] page needs to be
>> updated with
>> > examples which make that point that if it really is that simple,
>> someone
>> > else will have done the work for you already, and all you need to
>> do is
>> > quote them.
>>
>> Literally speaking, conversion of temperatures from Fahrenheit to
>> Celsius
>> would fall foul of this.  And numerous other things: such as
>> conversion of
>> dates out of one calendar system into another, metrication, currency
>> conversion, inverting family relationships from 'nephew' to 'uncle' ...
>
> No, that's a strawman argument.  "Deductive reasoning" becomes
> original research when it is used to build a case against a position
> presented in an article, not when used to do unit conversions.  Now if
> you were to assert that based on genetics and "simple deductive
> reasoning" that uncles were more closely related to nephews than aunts
> were to nieces, that would be original research, and you'd have to
> find some source which supported it.

That's certainly an extremist view.  It implies that a crackpot theory
is acceptable as long as it has previously been published somewhere
else.  However, if the public thought that the theory was so ridiculous
that they felt it a waste of time to dispute it we would not be allowed
to publish a refutation on the grounds that it was original research.
You seem to forget the original purpose for the rule.

Ec


from_name: Kate Turner

subject: [Wikipedia-l] downtime status report

body:
hello,

downtime during the last ~2 hours (13-15 UTC) was caused by a power strip in
the colo blowing. switch/router and some machines were down, but the database
is unaffected.  the site is now mostly up but may be unreliable / slow while
we finish working on it.

we're currently discussing options WRT better management & redundancy to
prevent this happening again in the future...

thanks,
kate.

(i should point out that this problem was entirely our fault, not the colo's,
and they were very helpful in bringing the site back online.

please follow up technical queries to wikitech-l rather than wikipedia-l).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20050307/1d4376e1/attachment.pgp


list: wikitech-l

subject: [Wikitech-l] downtime status report

body:
hello,

downtime during the last ~2 hours (13-15 UTC) was caused by a power strip in
the colo blowing. switch/router and some machines were down, but the database
is unaffected.  the site is now mostly up but may be unreliable / slow while
we finish working on it.

we're currently discussing options WRT better management & redundancy to
prevent this happening again in the future...

thanks,
kate.

(i should point out that this problem was entirely our fault, not the colo's,
and they were very helpful in bringing the site back online.

please follow up technical queries to wikitech-l rather than wikipedia-l).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050307/1d4376e1/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Sj

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Nofollow vote results on en.wikipedi

body:
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 11:54:12 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Therefore, it seems best to me if nofollow is on by default in the
> software distribution (since most small wikis are victimized by spam)
> and that nofollow is turned off in all the busy wikipedia sites.

I didn't take part in the original vote, since it was a very scattered
discussion and a simple "nofollow v. no nofollow" choice was hard to
make; but the above sounds like a fair short-term compromise.

It would also be great for editors to have the option of forcing
"nofollow" for a link
(and for setting other attribs like "title").

> Wikipedia provides an enormously high value set of hints to search
> engines to help them find sites that don't suck.

In the longer term, we should start treating external links, and other
bibliography entries and references, like first-class citizens -- with
their own discussion pages, watchlist entries, and attributes.

A reference is a lot more than just another sentence in a 10k article.
 It forms part of the core of a good encyclopedia -- doubly so for one
which prides itself on not hand-picking its editors.  References
should have histories, should become more precise over time (which
edition of that book?  on what date was that website visited [and
where's the permalink to it via the Internet Archive]?  what do other
people say about this reference?  is this advertising?  zealotry?
spam?), should give off more of a signal when added, modified, or
deleted.  When a link changes (as most of the web does), all uses of
that reference should change as well.

Perhaps we could design a system where there is a 'right' way to
insert or call an external URL, so that a URL that is just pasted in
would have ref=nofollow, but one which is called correctly (and has
its own discussion space and history somewhere) would not.

I will write something about this at [[m:References]], once the wiki
is back up...

--
+sj+


from_name: Boris Lohnzweiger

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Saterlandic Frisian Wikipedia + smaller language
	wikipedias in general

body:
Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>, wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org schrieb am 06.03.05 22:23:39:

> I for one think that a smaller community (even a "microcommunity"
> perhaps) is more conducive to the Wiki concept because unlike such
> large communities as Dutch or German speakers, it is very conceivable
> that /every single speaker/ of Saterlandic Frisian could become
> involved in such a Wikipedia.

It certainly would be desirable, but conceivable, I don't so. You know, just like the Hopi, rural East Frisians tend to be skeptical of any new ideas coming from the outside. A Lox Saxon proverb in northern Germany goes "Wat de Buur nich kennt dat freet he nich." (=a farmer doesn't eat anything he doesn't know). Your conception of "/every single speaker/ of Saterlandic Frisian" becoming involved is extremely optimistic. Knowing the East Frisians, I am not sure whether we could convince even one single speaker. And I think you can find similar attitudes among among many smaller ethnic groups. Maybe it's a problem in general if "outsiders" (however committed and well-meaning they might be) are trying to start such projects. Why don't we let the Saterfrisians and the Hopis decide for themselves if they have a need for a wikipedia insteed speculating about what they might want or not. Me, I consider them intelligent enough to request their own wikipedia when they deem it useful.!
  After all, they are the only people who can write it. You mentioned the term "linguistic imperialism" here some time ago. Maybe telling language minorities that they need to set up a wikipedia in order to preserve their language could be considered linguistacally imperialistic, too.

> I once had an idea, that we could set up a Hopi Wikipedia, and then
> work on promotion of it on Hopi, get elders and teenagers involved,
> try to get middle-aged people involved as well, and eventually hope
> for 90% community involvement of Hopi speakers. When such a point is
> reached, it is a virtual mirror of the real-life community, except it
> is also working towards building an encyclopaedia.
> Unfortunately I don't have the time or the resources to begin such a
> project, and generally Hopi people are very distrusting of white
> people in such matters (and with good reason, too) and although a
> medium level of involvement may be reached, it might be hard to get
> elders involved in what they see as a possible attempt by whites to
> poison or kill Hopi language and culture.

I was just trying to understand why you're refering to ideas that didn't work in order to convince me that a very similar thing will work well. Sorry, but I don't get it.

> Most of these Wikipedias were requested by people who had the notion
> "I have heard of this language. There is no Wikipedia in it. It should
> be created." but were never followed up after their creation.

That's perfectly right. And that's why I think that some native speakers should express their interest in starting their edition of wikipedia before we do anything. As I mentioned above, they are basically the only ones who can write it and as soon as they are plainly not interested (because they prefer English or German encyclopias or because they prefer doings sports over sitting at a PC in their free time or whatever) more new wikipedias will end up dead or half-dead like too many before.

> In addition, even these ill-requested Wikipedias are picking up speed,
> one-by-one... look at the flurry of activity on ka:, li:, hy:, etc.
> which had previously been inactive for months (li: actually had 0
> pages)! ka: and hy:, two important languages of the Caucasus region
> (Georgian and Armenian), now have over 100 articles and are quickly
> growing more! Unfortunately it seems that such success is limited
> almost exclusively to European languages and more recently Indic
> languages to a certain degree, although African languages (examples
> are Bambara bm:, Wolof wo:, Amharic am:, Lingala ln:) have seen some
> unexpected activity recently.

I have seen those successes and promising signs, too. And I rejoice every time I seen them. And I'd like to see many more of those and I'd like to see it last, for I am 100% pro-multilinguilism. But again I think you're too optimistic there. Matter of fact - at least according to the way I count it - half of the wikipedias are completely or almost inactive. Even a lot of editions for which 50 or so articles are indicated contain nothing but headlines with blank pages below them or similar rubbish (often pitiful attempts of non-speakers to create at least some pseudo-activity). This is the cold hard truth. Everything else would be wishful thinking. And I we really care about the success of this unique project called Wikipedia we should care about that truth.

Boris

______________________________________________________________
Verschicken Sie romantische, coole und witzige Bilder per SMS!
Jetzt bei WEB.DE FreeMail: http://f.web.de/?mc=021193


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
JAY JG said:
>
> Actually, you are incorrect; there are obvious ArbCom cases right now
> that  no-one is willing to bring before ArbCom.

Make an evidence page.


subject: [WikiEN-l] SD Magazine article: The Wiki Way

body:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 14:55:39 -0800, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> The April 2005 edition of Software Development Magazine has an article
> Rick Wayne wrote about wiki software, and MediaWiki has BY FAR the
> nicest screen shots. You'll recognize the yellow flower and the
> puzzle-world right away. It's in the April 2005 edition, which just

Hey, that's fantastic.

> "The Wikipedia is the canonical example of what you can do with
> MediaWiki; here's the entry on data structures, with the navigation bar

Yet another person who says "THE Wikipedia".    Alas.

--
+sj+


from_name: Charles Matthews

body:
zero 0000 wrote

> The accuser is treated worse than the accused.

The argument, I take it, is that the ArbCom should only be able to apply
remedies to the editor complained of.

OK - suppose that was agreed today - how long would it take for every
'accused' to figure out that it is possible to bring a countersuit against
the 'accuser'?  Now an number of those suits would no doubt be thrown right
out by the ArbCom.  But for those where there is  not such a clear case,
wouldn't it come to much the current position?

Charles


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
Mediators should explore what is likely to happen if the parties take the
matter to arbitration. Those possible negative consequences should serve to
motivate a settlement at the mediation level. This is another reason to
continue to look at possible infractions on both sides of any dispute. Once
we give someone carte blanche to let it all hang out if the other party is a
bad guy they will have absolutely no reason to settle at the mediation or
lower level.

Fred

> From: Brian M <brian1954 at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: Brian M <brian1954 at gmail.com>, English Wikipedia
> <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 16:43:40 -0500
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom - too attached to 'equal treatment'?
>
>>
>> That is a role that mediation should play.
>>
>> -- mav
>>
>
> Why separate "mediation" from "arbitration"?   Why such complicated
> dispute resolution procedures?    It is almost as if we want to make
> it hard and complicated to resolve disputes, something you can only do
> if you are determined.   What is the logic behind that?
>
> Wouldn't mediation work better if the parties knew that the mediator
> seeking a resolution to a dispute/behaviour problem had the ready
> means to impose a sanction on any parties deemed not to be
> cooperating?     Iron fist in the velvet glove.   At present, in the
> case of real a behaviour problem (as opposed to a good-faith
> difference of opinion) mediation is a hoop people have to jump through
> to get to arbitration, and anyway it is broken.
>
> --Brian M (BM)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Theresa Knott

body:
>
> Actually, you are incorrect; there are obvious ArbCom cases right now that
> no-one is willing to bring before ArbCom.
>
> Jay.

Such as?

Theresa


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> JAY JG said:

>>Actually, you are incorrect; there are obvious ArbCom cases right now
>>that  no-one is willing to bring before ArbCom.

> Make an evidence page.

Or rather, make it a Request For Comment.

- d.


body:
JAY JG said:
>
> Why should it be only people who have actually brought cases before
> ArbCom  who must "suffer the consequences for their own behaviour where
> this has  been deleterious to Wikipedia?"  If you're so keen on the
> concept that  everyone should suffer consequences for their behaviour,
> shouldn't you be  promoting the idea that ArbCom should have its own
> investigative police,  scouring Wikipedia for "deleterious" behaviour,
> and bringing all suspects  before ArbCom for summary judgement?
In a sense, this is what we have.  All editors are responsible for
ensuring that no harm comes to Wikipedia, and the dispute resolution
process escalates otherwise-intractable behavior to arbcom level in due
course.
> ArbCom has never been "a catspaw with which
> adept  procedure-manipulators can wage war on their less adept
> enemies", and there  is no indication that it will ever be so.  Rather,
> it has been a body which  has helped rid Wikipedia of some of its most
> egregious policy violators,  editors who collectively have done more
> harm to Wikipedia than 100 "catspaw"  ArbComs could ever do.  The Cheese
> Dreams et al of Wikipedia were not banned  for being "unadept" at
> "procedure-manipulation", and it is ridiculous to  even imply as much.>
I agree completely.  Arbcom must be free to investigate cases brought
before it and identify and remedy deleterious behavior.  To this end it
should probably not be further restricted artificially as if it were a
court in an adversarial justice system.  I was commenting on zero's idea
that we should limit which parties to a case arbcom was permitted to apply
a remedy to.
There is nothing wrong with arbcom saying at the end of a case: "you've
all been naughty, now stop it" if this is merited.


body:
I guess I replying to this you need to go back to the old saw: Wikipedia is
not an experiment in anarchy. I suggest you try out this sort of decision
process in a business or social group and see how it goes. We have worked
hard on our procedures and although we change them from time to time we know
what to expect and what needs to be done next. It is kind of like a
checklist, it enables us to get through the work, and more than anything
else it is transparent. Anyone can look at a proposed decision and the
policies and evidence that backs it up. That would not be possible with
trusted users who may or may not explain to the community at large what they
are doing and why.

Fred

> From: Brian M <brian1954 at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: Brian M <brian1954 at gmail.com>, English Wikipedia
> <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 16:36:26 -0500
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom - too attached to 'equal treatment'?
>
> I am sure Jimbo did not just shoot from the hip, and anybody trying to
> sort out what is happening would still need "to go through the edits".
> But what isn't needed is the whole quasi-legalistic  infrastructure
> that the arbcom has evolved
> with "cases", "petitioners", "respondents", "recusals", "votes to
> accept or deny cases",  "injunctions", "evidence", etc, etc,      It
> is silly.
>
> I have no idea of the AC history, but somewhere back when the arbcom
> was getting rolling it took a wrong turn and now we have this
> tremendously heavy process.  The basic need is simply to be able to
> get  an experienced and level-headed Wikipedian who is respected and
> trusted by the community involved in various situations who can (1)
> warn people that they are out of line and try to nudge them towards
> correcting their behaviour; and/or (2) impose a sanction if the
> misbehaviour continues, with the easily-obtained backing of a
> committee that represents the community consensus,
>
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 14:14:08 -0700, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>> Jimbo did spend a lot of time going through the edits so he could figure out
>> what is going on. That is what takes the time. And discussing what is really
>> the right thing to do.
>>
>> Fred
>>
>>> From: Brian M <brian1954 at gmail.com>
>>> Reply-To: Brian M <brian1954 at gmail.com>, English Wikipedia
>>> <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>> Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 15:45:33 -0500
>>> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom - too attached to 'equal treatment'?
>>>
>>> The Arbitrators should become "moderators".  When a moderator becomes
>>> aware of an issue, he should try to resolve it by communicating with
>>> the party or parties concerned.    If he cannot, he should simply go
>>> to the other moderators and say (in effect): "The facts are such and
>>> such.   Here is what I have tried to resolve it; but it hasn't worked.
>>> I propose that we impose such-and-such sanction.   The other
>>> moderators should then just vote over the course of a few days, and
>>> the decision should be implemented.   There is no need for the
>>> deliberation to be formal, long, or even public.   Decisions should
>>> just be announced on the Administrator noticeboard, which is also
>>> where people might go to get the Moderators attention for problems.
>>> There would probably need to be some system so that several Moderators
>>> didn't work the same problems and get in each other's way.   The
>>> process should be very fast with a minimum of nonsense.   The AC
>>> replaces Jimmy and I am sure that Jimmy didn't go through all of this
>>> laughable legaiistic claptrap when he was making his decisions.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:30:14 +0000, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
> > JAY JG said:
>
> >>Actually, you are incorrect; there are obvious ArbCom cases right now
> >>that  no-one is willing to bring before ArbCom.
>
> > Make an evidence page.
>
> Or rather, make it a Request For Comment.

Exactly. If the community speaks up the conflict may be resolved
without the need for the AC. Even if it does go to AC the rfc will
give you a pretty good idea of what AC opinion is likely to be. We are
unlikely to contradict the community.(unless new evidence comes to
light)

Theresa


body:
Charles Matthews said:
> zero 0000 wrote
>
>> The accuser is treated worse than the accused.
>
> The argument, I take it, is that the ArbCom should only be able to
> apply remedies to the editor complained of.
>
> OK - suppose that was agreed today - how long would it take for every
> 'accused' to figure out that it is possible to bring a countersuit
> against the 'accuser'?  Now an number of those suits would no doubt be
> thrown right out by the ArbCom.  But for those where there is  not such
> a clear case, wouldn't it come to much the current position?

There would be procedural problems that would render such cases difficult
to manage. For instance if Arbcom is not been permitted to act on evidence
brought by a defendant, who is then banned, the defendant will not be able
to participate in the counter-suit.  The current way is better.


from_name: Brian M

body:
I am sure Jimbo did not just shoot from the hip, and anybody trying to
sort out what is happening would still need "to go through the edits".
  But what isn't needed is the whole quasi-legalistic  infrastructure
that the arbcom has evolved
with "cases", "petitioners", "respondents", "recusals", "votes to
accept or deny cases",  "injunctions", "evidence", etc, etc,      It
is silly.

I have no idea of the AC history, but somewhere back when the arbcom
was getting rolling it took a wrong turn and now we have this
tremendously heavy process.  The basic need is simply to be able to
get  an experienced and level-headed Wikipedian who is respected and
trusted by the community involved in various situations who can (1)
warn people that they are out of line and try to nudge them towards
correcting their behaviour; and/or (2) impose a sanction if the
misbehaviour continues, with the easily-obtained backing of a
committee that represents the community consensus,

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 14:14:08 -0700, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> Jimbo did spend a lot of time going through the edits so he could figure out
> what is going on. That is what takes the time. And discussing what is really
> the right thing to do.
>
> Fred
>
> > From: Brian M <brian1954 at gmail.com>
> > Reply-To: Brian M <brian1954 at gmail.com>, English Wikipedia
> > <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 15:45:33 -0500
> > To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom - too attached to 'equal treatment'?
> >
> > The Arbitrators should become "moderators".  When a moderator becomes
> > aware of an issue, he should try to resolve it by communicating with
> > the party or parties concerned.    If he cannot, he should simply go
> > to the other moderators and say (in effect): "The facts are such and
> > such.   Here is what I have tried to resolve it; but it hasn't worked.
> > I propose that we impose such-and-such sanction.   The other
> > moderators should then just vote over the course of a few days, and
> > the decision should be implemented.   There is no need for the
> > deliberation to be formal, long, or even public.   Decisions should
> > just be announced on the Administrator noticeboard, which is also
> > where people might go to get the Moderators attention for problems.
> > There would probably need to be some system so that several Moderators
> > didn't work the same problems and get in each other's way.   The
> > process should be very fast with a minimum of nonsense.   The AC
> > replaces Jimmy and I am sure that Jimmy didn't go through all of this
> > laughable legaiistic claptrap when he was making his decisions.
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
JAY JG wrote

> Perhaps the [[Wikipedia:No original research]] page needs to be updated
with
> examples which make that point that if it really is that simple, someone
> else will have done the work for you already, and all you need to do is
> quote them.

Literally speaking, conversion of temperatures from Fahrenheit to Celsius
would fall foul of this.  And numerous other things: such as conversion of
dates out of one calendar system into another, metrication, currency
conversion, inverting family relationships from 'nephew' to 'uncle' ...

It is far from obvious that _every instance_ of every such low-level
operation can be supported as a literal quote.  I don't expect this to have
much effect on editors.  But surely drawing up such a policy that is drafted
in too sweeping a way is going to inhibit something valuable, sometime,
somewhere.

There was an argument brought forward on the Featured Article status
discussion for [[The Cantos]], that everything said about the interpretation
for this poem should be drawn from the secondary literature.  Now, the
argument had some merit: the article was amended in specific ways.  But
considering that the article itself summarised (expertly, and that part was
nothing to do with me) all 107-odd cantos of this 500 page poem, there was
also a slightly ridiculous quality to arguing that you couldn't just provide
a helpful summary of themes extracted from all that, to help the reader get
into 80K of text.

And I honestly think the article might never have got started at all, if NOR
had clouded my judgement about getting some scaffolding in place.

Charles


body:
slimvirgin at gmail.com wrote:

> I should add to this, however, that I'm grateful to the arbcom for the
> decisions they reached in the end, as they managed to stop his
> activities here completely.

Well, theoretically. There is an editor many are fairly sure is Herschel,
based on style, but who seems to be keeping well away from LaRouche
related activity, and who no-one's brought a formal complaint against
as yet. This is, I suppose, a combination of "infinite forgiveness"
(if User:Michael came back as a good editor, ANYONE can) and "if there's
no problem, there's no problem" (everyone has other things to concern
themselves with, e.g. writing an encyclopedia).

(I expect a sockpuppet check to fail to turn up any evidence, as Herschel
was clearly quite technically adept and was only caught as Weed Harper by
slipping up. But editing patterns are how socks are suspected anyway.)

In any AC case, there will be myriad accusations and counteraccusations
flying about, even if we put in a new rule that a case can only be
considered in terms of the initial accused, not the initial accuser.
That's why we like clear and detailed evidence pages so very much.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Can arbitration really support policy?

body:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> Fred Bauder wisely observed:

> "Arbitration is not a tool to be used in struggle with other
> editors. If you are struggling with other editors rather
> than complaining in good faith about violations of Wikipedia
> policy you are probably violating Wikipedia policies
> yourself."
> However, users (of all ranks):
> * Generally regard arbitration as a HIM vs. YOU matter.
> * Often use arbitration as a weapon with which to carry on struggles
> with other editors.

Yep, which is incorrect.

> What we need instead is a board which enforces rules in HIM vs. US
> paradigm. That is, a user's conduct or speech is evaluated in terms of
> how well it supports or thwarts the aims of Wikipedia.
> If someone's name-calling is really bugging others, distracting them
> from writing superb articles, and making them want to kick the dust of
> this crummy little town off their shoes -- well, I'd say then that HIS
> NAME-CALLING is out of line and ought to be squelched somehow. It would
> be good to have a rule on hand, which we can pull off a shelf, dust off,
> and apply. (YOU ARE BLOCKED FOR X AMOUNT OF TIME.) The time-out gives
> the rest of us a chance to recover from his annoying behavior, and get
> back into the normal, everyday routine of cooperative editing. And he
> might even *choose* to adhere more closely to the rules when we let him
> come back.
> Let's stop making it a "dispute resolution process" between two EQUALS
> who happen to disagree. Maybe ONE of them is actually in the RIGHT, and
> the other guy is MESSING THINGS UP. In such a case, it's not a matter of
> smoothing over a 'conflict' between two people. It's enforcing the rules
> of the COMMUNITY so we can get on with furthering the aims of our
> project.
> Let's send this message to all and sundry:
> "You wanna help us build a great encyclopedia? Fine, and welcome! You
> want to advance your own agenda? Stop right here: learn to do it our
> way, or simply DO IT SOMEWHERE ELSE."

I think there's a lot of what you describe in what we try to do now ;-)
Perhaps there's a good way to phrase it that can go on a suitable page.

- d.


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

> There is nothing wrong with arbcom saying at the end of a case: "you've
> all been naughty, now stop it" if this is merited.

There are lots of cases in which we basically really want to do just this.
The antisocial against the antisocial.

- d.


body:
>
> That is a role that mediation should play.
>
> -- mav
>

Why separate "mediation" from "arbitration"?   Why such complicated
dispute resolution procedures?    It is almost as if we want to make
it hard and complicated to resolve disputes, something you can only do
if you are determined.   What is the logic behind that?

Wouldn't mediation work better if the parties knew that the mediator
seeking a resolution to a dispute/behaviour problem had the ready
means to impose a sanction on any parties deemed not to be
cooperating?     Iron fist in the velvet glove.   At present, in the
case of real a behaviour problem (as opposed to a good-faith
difference of opinion) mediation is a hoop people have to jump through
to get to arbitration, and anyway it is broken.

--Brian M (BM)


from_name: Julian Hodgson

subject: [Wikitech-l] Maths

body:
Hi there,

I'm trying the following in MediaWiki and not getting any Maths - any
suggestions?

<math>\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{x^n}{n!}</math>

<math>x3\phi</math>

I'm using the latest rc1 release.

Thanks,

Julian


body:
This is something courts do when they are faced with fact situations they
aren't competent to deal with. Sometimes such a fact finder is called a
special master. This will become much easier to do as more experts become
aware of and interested in Wikipedia.

Fred

> From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 15:42:13 -0800 (PST)
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Rules, expertise, and encyclopedic standards
>
> Danny and I were playing with the idea of having the ArbCom convene special
> panels of non-involved people for certain cases (not necessarily English
> Wikipedia users), who could inform the ArbCom on the particulars of content
> (whether or not a particular idea is mainstream, alternative but valid to
> include in some way, or idiosyncratic/original research).
>
> Such info could be used in ArbCom proceedings to better inform the arbcom in
> cases that involve accusation of breaking content-related policies (just as
> developers inform the arbcom on the likelyhood that two or more users are
> socks). IMO, such an idea deserves some thought and refinement.


body:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 11:36:14 -0500, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >From: <slimvirgin at gmail.com>
> >
> > > >> It wouldn't artificially discourage people from making legitimate
> > > >> complaints for fear that they too would be penalised <snip>
> >Theresa Knott said:
> > > > Is there any evidence that this has actually happened in the past? . .
> >.
> > > >I am not aware of a legit complaint not having been made out of fear.
> >
> >I was reluctant to bring the case against the LaRouche editor
> >Herschelkrustofsky because of uncertainty about arbcom attitudes.
> >Herschel was operating a couple of sockpuppets and for months the
> >three user accounts engaged in absurd POV editing and original
> >research, as well as trying to goad editors into making personal
> >attacks. I couldn't prove they were sockpuppets, and twice asked a
> >developer for help but got no response, so I couldn't bring a case.
> >They started attacking me in November, and I managed to last several
> >weeks of daily snide remarks and POV editing, when I finally broke
> >down and called one of them a "toxic troll" twice within half an hour,
> >the only time I had said anything that could be called a personal
> >attack. The context was that, after days of negotiation with Herschel
> >to have an NPOV tag taken down, we finally reached an agreement, took
> >down the tag, and then one of his sockpuppets put it straight back up
> >again. Hence my troll comment. Herschel was pleased as punch that I'd
> >finally weakened and he went straight to the arbcom page and asked for
> >a penalty against me. Fred Bauder responded by saying that if I ever
> >showed up at the arbcom, I'd be banned for a day or two at least.
> >This, without having seen any evidence or asking for my side of the
> >story. That definitely made me reluctant to bring a case, though I did
> >in the end.
> >
> >In January, I asked David Gerard for help regarding my sockpuppet
> >suspicion. He was able to get a developer to check the accounts, and
> >it was confirmed that they appeared to be sockpuppets, so I took the
> >case to the new, recently elected arbcom. In the course of it,
> >Herschel complained about my toxic-troll comment on an arbcom talk
> >page. He submitted no evidence on the evidence page, and provided no
> >diffs, but the arbcom took his comment as evidence and found the diffs
> >for him. I didn't know they would do this, and hadn't prepared a
> >defense. I wasn't penalized but I was formally warned.
> >
> >When the proposed decision against Herschel was being written up, Fred
> >also made a couple of remarks about the need to deal with "the POV
> >warriors on the other side," and named one editor, but he said
> >warriors plural, so I assume he also meant me and/or one of the other
> >editors. This meant we had to spend more time submitting defenses for
> >ourselves. Fred provided no evidence of POV-pushing on our part, no
> >examples, diffs, nothing, so we didn't even know what we were
> >defending ourselves against.
> >
> >These were minor things, but they were annoying, because several
> >editors had spent a lot of time dealing with Herschel for eight
> >months, and we were doing it for Wikipedia, not for our own benefit.
> >None of us had personal POVs that we were pushing, except a desire for
> >accuracy. Keeping him and the two other accounts at bay was hard work,
> >as was putting up with his constant snide remarks, and then putting
> >the arbcom case together; yet it felt as though we were on trial too.
> >
> >If we'd had an editorial review committee, editors could have gone
> >there about his original-research and NPOV violations when he first
> >turned up in May, without having to wait for sockpuppet checks or for
> >him to violate other conduct-related policies.
> >
> >I should add to this, however, that I'm grateful to the arbcom for the
> >decisions they reached in the end, as they managed to stop his
> >activities here completely.
> >
> >Sarah
>
> I'm glad Sarah was brave enough to speak out; this e-mail perfectly
> illustrates the problem.  And Sarah is not a POV warrior with a grudge
> against Larouche, but someone who was reluctantly drawn into an obvious mess
> created by a Larouch acolyte.

But as Sarah said "These were minor things, but they were annoying"

Let's keep things in perspective. Should we really change the way the
AC works to avoid annoying minor gripes.

Quoting Sarah again

"I should add to this, however, that I'm grateful to the arbcom for the
decisions they reached in the end, as they managed to stop his
activities here completely."

Is it really worth hindering the AC from trying get rid of trolls, POV
pushers, out and out lunatics etc in order to avoid causing such
little greviences?

I'm not saying everything is perfect. But I think the alternatives
being suggested at the moment will be worse, not better.

Theresa
>
> Jay.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Theresa Knott wrote:

> I agree. I came to the AC after it was formed and it's way of working
>
>was set. But personally i hate the jargon and the quasilegalistic way
>of working. I would like to go to the people concerned and ask
>questions "Why did you remove that chunk of text" "Do you regret
>calling him a shithead and have you said or done anything by way of an
>aplogy" "If you had to to it again, would you have handled it
>differently?" that sort of thing. I'd like things to be far more
>informal than they are at the moment, but i don't know how the
>community feel about that, and i don't want to break a process, that
>basically works (even though it has its faults)
>
>
Isn't this why mediation and arbitration were planned as separate
procedures.  Mediation should do what you suggest.  When a dispute is
begun by someone intent on applying some kind of punishment the idea of
finding a negotiated settlement on the article content has been pretty
well abandoned.  Refusal to co-operate with mediation should be used
against a participant who wants to go immediately to arbitration.

Ec


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

body:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 15:55:19 -0800, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
It implies that a crackpot theory
> is acceptable as long as it has previously been published somewhere
> else.  However, if the public thought that the theory was so ridiculous
> that they felt it a waste of time to dispute it we would not be allowed
> to publish a refutation on the grounds that it was original research.
> You seem to forget the original purpose for the rule.

It would be acceptable so long as it had been published somewhere
reputable and credible, and the chances of it being crackpot would
therefore be low. If the public genuinely thought a theory so
ridiculous that no one had bothered to challenge it, it almost
certainly wouldn't have a place in Wikipedia. This is why the NOR,
NPOV, and cite sources policies should always be considered jointly,
as each policy serves to illuminate the meaning of the others.
Jointly, they would be able to deal with the kind of example you
raise.

Sarah


from_name: Tomer Chachamu

subject: [Wikitech-l] Maths

body:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:50:31 +0000, Julian Hodgson
<julian.hodgson at framestore-cfc.com> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I'm trying the following in MediaWiki and not getting any Maths - any
> suggestions?
>
> <math>\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{x^n}{n!}</math>
>
> <math>x3\phi</math>
>
> I'm using the latest rc1 release.

Make sure LaTeX and (I think) ImageMagick is set up properly. Check
SiteConfig.php or whatever that config file is.


body:
JAY JG wrote:

> and when it came to the inevitable RfAR months later
> (after which the person in question was banned for over a year), none of
> the evidence presented in the RfC was even considered.

Er, why not? It would likely have been an excellent start
to arbitration evidence. Which case do you mean?

- d.


body:
This would give our experts something which their special qualifications,
knowing the literature, would provide real help to Wikipedia. We would still
need to be on the look out for axe grinders. However, the biases of scholars
who have an extensive body of published work are not that hard to figure
out. We might require some real names and verification for this. I seem this
as more a committee of thousands than dozens; but that's looking ahead.

Fred

> From: Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com>, English Wikipedia
> <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 19:11:46 -0500
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Rules, expertise, and encyclopedic standards
>
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:56:26 -0700, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>> This is something courts do when they are faced with fact situations they
>> aren't competent to deal with. Sometimes such a fact finder is called a
>> special master. This will become much easier to do as more experts become
>> aware of and interested in Wikipedia.
>
> Neat tidbit.  It seems to me it would require a very large pool of
> people to draw on.  Sort of like the 100+ usage experts for the
> American Heritage Dictionary -- not exclusive, just anyone who has
> expertise, or a good editing history in that area...
>
> It could be ugly if there were a fixed set of 3 or 4 people for each
> subject who were called on each time; or if simple content disputes,
> which would otherwise have been resolved elsewhere, were encouraged to
> come before the AC.
>
> --
> +sj+
> _ _ :-------.-.--------.--.--------.-.--------.--.--------[...]
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
Sj wrote:

>On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 14:55:39 -0800, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"The Wikipedia is the canonical example of what you can do with
>>MediaWiki; here's the entry on data structures, with the navigation bar
>>
>>
>Yet another person who says "THE Wikipedia".    Alas.
>
I don't have much objection to this.  Properly stressed, the word "the"
emphasizes the uniqueness of Wikipedia.

Ec


from_name: Wouter Steenbeek

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Saterlandic Frisian Wikipedia + thoughts on
	smalllanguage wikipedias in general

body:
Hi Boris,

Thanks for your reply, both to my and to Mark's messages. There is however
one thing I might disagree with you.

You compared the rural community of Seeltersk speakers with the Hopi people
and pointed out that "Wat de boer niet kent, dat (vr)eet hij niet" (this
proverb is also known in Dutch). Of course they are generally conservative;
indeed, the conservative nature of the Saterfrisians might have saved the
language from extinction for centuries!
But you might forget that the world is changing, and that even rural areas,
at least in Western Europe, become completely emancipated: a farmer is no
longer someone whose world ends with the borders of his farmyard. At least
some of them must be willing to join the project (elder people get
increasingly connected to the internet ;-)), and quite all of them are
nowadays aware of the unique status of their language and the necessity to
preserve it and to promote it outside their own community.

Moreover, there are nowadays many youngsters who know the language. Not from
their parents, who mostly raised them in Low Saxon with only very few
exceptions, but at school (in the 90s schools started projects to learn
their pupils Seelters), or from (one of) their grandparents, and they use it
as a second language, maybe sometimes even as a first language (cf. similar
movemens on the Isle of Man, or in French Flanders). These people can very
well be persuated to join the project.

Wouter

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Webmessenger doet het altijd en overal http://webmessenger.msn.com/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Pulling even with NYT, breaking 100

body:
Although NewYorkTimes.com is going through a slow patch, this week we pulled
even, almost ready to break into the top 100.

See:

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=6m&size=large&y=t&u
rl=wikipedia.org#top

Compare with newyorktimes.com

Fred


body:
Jay JG wrote

>  "Deductive reasoning" becomes original
> research when it is used to build a case against a position presented in
an
> article, not when used to do unit conversions.

I have to say that I'm not comfortable with 'content policy' being made into
something slightly different in this way.  Policy on content fundamentally
is there to help sort out what content is encyclopedic in nature.  It is not
really there - though clearly will be used by some - to tell you when you
may or may not argue a certain way (as if the process was inherently
adversarial).  One obviously shouldn't end up with a path-dependent
criterion, for example.

Charles


list: foundation-l

subject: [Foundation-l] wikibreak

body:
For all those desperately needing a break, you *must* watch these:
(warning: Flash movies ahead)

http://www.theenchiridion.com/animation/ddautta.html
http://www.theenchiridion.com/animation/cakedance.html...
   (this one is a huge file, but so worth it!)

SJ

> On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 03:03:33 -0800 (PST), Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>  > Okay
>  >
>  > This has little to do with a supposed "upper circle".
>  > I guess everyone has a need for a break from time to time.


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] wikibreak


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Spambots, casinos, and Congress

body:
On the subject of spam and nofollow, here is a petition to be sent to
Congress before they rule on restricting online poker sites based in
the US.

Netaloid's blog post about it:
http://netaloid.com/index.php/archives/2005/03/06/congressional-spam-petition/

You can sign it via ThePetitionSite:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/353566831

--
+sj+


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: stewards elections

body:
You may count me as a candidate also.  I am only fluent in en, but can
also manage de:, es: & fr: (some), it: & nl: (bits), and can read bits
of, but have charset troubles with, he: & zh:.

On a tangent, does anyone have stats on how international or
multilingual foundation-l is?  It looks as though under 300 people are
on the list; that's barely more than the total number of ambassadors.
Maybe there should be another push to get people from smaller
communities to sign up.

On Sat, 5 Mar 2005, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I started a vote on this at [[meta:Vote on whether or not we should vote for
> stewards]].

Yum.  I wonder what would happen if people were voting on deleting
that article while others were voting /in/ it...

--
+sj+


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: stewards elections


body:
JAY JG wrote:
> From: David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>
>> JAY JG wrote:

>>> and when it came to the inevitable RfAR months later (after which the
>>> person in question was banned for over a year), none of the evidence
>>> presented in the RfC was even considered.

>> Er, why not? It would likely have been an excellent start
>> to arbitration evidence. Which case do you mean?

> As far as I know none of the evidence in my RfC re: Alberuni was used in
> the actual findings against him.

Ah, okay. Apology on my part for not going looking, that was one of the
earliest cases I looked at.

Note to all bringing RFArs: if you've done an RFC, list it on the
Evidence page *and* explicitly reuse the evidence!

- d.


body:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:56:26 -0700, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> This is something courts do when they are faced with fact situations they
> aren't competent to deal with. Sometimes such a fact finder is called a
> special master. This will become much easier to do as more experts become
> aware of and interested in Wikipedia.

Neat tidbit.  It seems to me it would require a very large pool of
people to draw on.  Sort of like the 100+ usage experts for the
American Heritage Dictionary -- not exclusive, just anyone who has
expertise, or a good editing history in that area...

It could be ugly if there were a fixed set of 3 or 4 people for each
subject who were called on each time; or if simple content disputes,
which would otherwise have been resolved elsewhere, were encouraged to
come before the AC.

--
+sj+
 _ _ :-------.-.--------.--.--------.-.--------.--.--------[...]


from_name: Michael Becker

body:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 23:13:37 +0000, Abe Sokolov <abesokolov at hotmail.com>
wrote:
 > Aside from the issue of capacity, there's also the matter of credibility,
 > particularly public credibility. Even if the Wikipedia community has more
 > trust in the arbcom now, we cannot infer based on that observation that
 > Wikipedia readers or the public will hold it in any high esteem. Frankly,
 > many people (to say the least) would be highly skeptical of an
encyclopedia
 > whose editorial concerns are officially handled by teenagers. (This isn't
 > calling into question the abilities of the teenage arbom members; IMO at
 > least two of them have more sense in them than many of the older
members put
 > together.) Even if public perception is unfounded, Wikipedia still cannot
 > afford to disregard it. After all, it matters insofar as our work
having any
 > meaning. If Wikipedia editors are the only people taking Wikipedia
articles
 > and processes seriously, then we've all been wasting our time.
 > -172

If we are going to worry about puplic perception, some would argue that
the first thing we should do is work on making Wikipedia
child/offendable safe. I've been a strict opponent of censorship on
Wikipedia myself, but I think that issues regarding potentially
offensive content is has more potential for damage to our credibility
than unenforced content guidelines. I agree that quality control is a
valid concern, however I thin that if the justification is public
perception, potentially offensive content tops that list.
--
Michael Becker


from_name: Fastfission

body:
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 17:15:57 -0700, slimvirgin at gmail.com
<slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 15:55:19 -0800, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> It implies that a crackpot theory
> > is acceptable as long as it has previously been published somewhere
> > else.  However, if the public thought that the theory was so ridiculous
> > that they felt it a waste of time to dispute it we would not be allowed
> > to publish a refutation on the grounds that it was original research.
> > You seem to forget the original purpose for the rule.
>
> It would be acceptable so long as it had been published somewhere
> reputable and credible, and the chances of it being crackpot would
> therefore be low. If the public genuinely thought a theory so
> ridiculous that no one had bothered to challenge it, it almost
> certainly wouldn't have a place in Wikipedia. This is why the NOR,
> NPOV, and cite sources policies should always be considered jointly,
> as each policy serves to illuminate the meaning of the others.
> Jointly, they would be able to deal with the kind of example you
> raise.
>

Just a few thoughts on this:

1. *Who* defines "reputable"? If crackpot is just defined as "not
reputable" then that just shifts the point of discretion somewhere
else; it doesn't resolve it.
2. "The public" rarely challenges theories. "Pundits", "journalists",
"writers", and "academics" challenge theories. The vast majority of
"the public" is informationally mute. Which again gets back to the
"who?" question.

Of course, the "who?" question seems to be the most divisive one here,
and I'm not sure it *should* be resolved. I think removing than
tension, however satisfying it may feel at first, will destroy the
engine which makes this online knowledge project qualitatively better
than any of the other attempts (nupedia and everything2 come to mind
as extreme approachs to answering the "who?" question in a binding
way, and both seem to fail in my opinion for that reason). Okay, now
I'm just rambling on...

FF


body:
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 14:53:56 -0500, Brian M <brian1954 at gmail.com> wrote:
> It would seem that reasonable "due process" would require that if the
> arbcom is contemplating imposing a sanction on a user as a result of
> evidence of his misbehaviour presented in the course of a case, he
> should be notified of this and invited to present his own evidence in
> the case.
>
> These procedural rights are accorded to the original "respondent" in
> an arbcom case. If anyone else becomes a "respondent" in course of a
> case, either as a result of a counter-charge by the original
> respondent, or through any other evidence presented in the case, he or
> should be accorded the same privileges.
>
> If the arbcom believes that it is necessary to proceed in the
> quasi-judicial manner that it has adopted, with "cases",
> "respondents", "petitioners", "evidence", "injunctions", etc, then it
> should afford all users the same procedural protections.
>
> But personally, I think the arbcom should abandon its current
> quasi-judial, excessively legalistic procedure and proceed more
> informally as the implementors of the community consensus when
> individuals misbehave according to the policies.  I would prefer to
> see the Arbitration Committee change its name to the Moderation
> Committee and operate more informally, imposing sanctions where
> appropriate on any member deemed to have violated policy in an
> egregious manner.    They should not wait for "complaints" and "cases"
> to do this, although of course members should be able to bring
> problems to their attention via complaints.
>
> The reality is that (1)  the current procedure is not an arbitration;
> (2) the process of collecting "evidence", etc, simply slows down the
> meting out of appropriate sanctions, and can be gamed by trolls; (3)
> all the legalistic posturing by wannabe lawyers makes Wikipedia look
> childish and silly; and (4) the arbcom is not in any case an impartial
> panel of judges but are members themselves of the affected community
> sharing its project (whether they recuse themselves or not), and most
> probably the sanctions imposed by the Arbitrators are not made solely
> on the basis of the evidence presented, but also on their personal
> knowledge or investigation of the facts, and their own assessment of
> what sanctions the community consensus will favor or support.
>
> --Brian (BM)

I agree. I came to the AC after it was formed and it's way of working
was set. But personally i hate the jargon and the quasilegalistic way
of working. I would like to go to the people concerned and ask
questions "Why did you remove that chunk of text" "Do you regret
calling him a shithead and have you said or done anything by way of an
aplogy" "If you had to to it again, would you have handled it
differently?" that sort of thing. I'd like things to be far more
informal than they are at the moment, but i don't know how the
community feel about that, and i don't want to break a process, that
basically works (even though it has its faults)

Theresa


from_name: James D. Forrester

subject: [Foundation-l] Offial registration of Wikimedia France

body:
On Monday, March 07, 2005 7:18 PM, Yann Forget <yann at forget-me.net> wrote:

> Wikimedia France is now official registred as a non profit association.

This is fantastic. Well done to all involved.

Yours,
--
James D. Forrester -- Wikimedia: [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]

Mail: james at jdforrester.org | jon at eh.org | csvla at dcs.warwick.ac.uk
IM  : (MSN) jamesdforrester at hotmail.com


from_name: Yann Forget

body:
Hi,

Wikimedia France is now official registred as a non profit association.

Thanks to all who helped to do that.

Yann

Subject: [Wikimediafr-l] Publication au JO
Date: Monday 7 March 2005 09:28

Extrait du site http://www.journal-officiel.gouv.fr/accueil.php :

Association:  WIKIMEDIA FRANCE. No/Identifiant:
 Activit?(s): Culturel/Technique et Recherche
 No de parution: 20050010 No d'annonce: 1193 Paru le: 05/03/05
 D?partement (R?gion): 75 - Paris (ILE-DE-FRANCE)

 Sous-pr?fecture: D?claration ? la pr?fecture de police.
 Type d'annonce: Cr?ation (d?claration d'association)

L'association a donc dor?navant la capacit? juridique.

Nicolas

--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclop?die libre
http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux


from_name: AndyL

body:
on 3/7/05 10:48 AM, JAY JG at jayjg at hotmail.com wrote:

>> From: Theresa Knott <theresaknott at gmail.com>
>>> It wouldn't artificially discourage people from making legitimate
>> complaints
>>> for fear that they too would be penalised or at a minimum tempbanned
>> from
>>> editing an article until the hearing is complete.
>>
>> Is there any evidence that this has actually happened in the past?

I have stated once already that someone I know who was working on a
complaint against Herschelkrustofsky had second thoughts upon seeing
tempbans implemented (or pondered) in other cases against complainants
(specifically my complaint against ArmchairVexillologistDon in which the
ArbComm was initially considering tempbanning *both of us* from all articles
related to Canada until the arbitration was concluded - this was being
proposed before any evidence had even been heard

Andy


body:
Hello Wouter !

How neat you have that proverb in the Netherlands, too! Maybe I should emphasize that my evaluation of the Frisian nature was in no way meant negatively. They are industrious, reliable folks with a sense of humour of their own and a sense of pride that has served them well throughout many centuries. Issues for which people in areas further down in the south might need half an hour of discussion are solved with two or three words. I certainly like them and only wanted to point out that there is a certain let's say cautious character trait. Of course even I ; ) have realised that the world is changing and certainly Internet connectivity and usage in western Europe is basically the same in rural areas as it is in big cities.
>From what you are writing I can tell that you are very well informed about the situation of Seeltersk and therefore your proposal is on more solid ground than many others. Furthermore, what you have achieved so far in the Limburgish edition makes it appear even more well-founded.

While many of the concerns I mentioned earlier today about starting Wikipedias for very small languages persist, I nevertheless wish you all the best for your efforts!

Boris

wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org schrieb am 07.03.05 18:01:33:

Hi Boris,

Thanks for your reply, both to my and to Mark's messages. There is however
one thing I might disagree with you.

You compared the rural community of Seeltersk speakers with the Hopi people
and pointed out that "Wat de boer niet kent, dat (vr)eet hij niet" (this
proverb is also known in Dutch). Of course they are generally conservative;
indeed, the conservative nature of the Saterfrisians might have saved the
language from extinction for centuries!
But you might forget that the world is changing, and that even rural areas,
at least in Western Europe, become completely emancipated: a farmer is no
longer someone whose world ends with the borders of his farmyard. At least
some of them must be willing to join the project (elder people get
increasingly connected to the internet ;-)), and quite all of them are
nowadays aware of the unique status of their language and the necessity to
preserve it and to promote it outside their own community.

Moreover, there are nowadays many youngsters who know the language. Not from
their parents, who mostly raised them in Low Saxon with only very few
exceptions, but at school (in the 90s schools started projects to learn
their pupils Seelters), or from (one of) their grandparents, and they use it
as a second language, maybe sometimes even as a first language (cf. similar
movemens on the Isle of Man, or in French Flanders). These people can very
well be persuated to join the project.

Wouter

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Webmessenger doet het altijd en overal http://webmessenger.msn.com/

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

______________________________________________________________
Verschicken Sie romantische, coole und witzige Bilder per SMS!
Jetzt bei WEB.DE FreeMail: http://f.web.de/?mc=021193


subject: [Foundation-l] BiasMeNot

body:
I don't know how many of you have heard of BugMeNot (it's a site that
allows you to search for usernames/passwords for sites requiring
registration like nytimes.com). They have a link on their site titled
"BiasMeNot <http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Main_Page>." I was presently
surprised to see where it linked to.


subject: [Foundation-l] BiasMeNot


from_name: David Gerard

body:
JAY JG wrote:

> But of course it is there to do just that (among other things).  For
> example, Wikipedia clearly insists (via the NPOV policy) that you may
> not argue only one position on a subject, but must bring countering
> views citing various holders of positions, inevitably introducing an
> adversarial element to articles.  And the original research policy
> insists that one cannot argue one's own views, but rather must present
> other's views, and that tempered with the caveat that extreme minority
> views need not be presented at all.

It may be worth mentioning that recent ArbCom rulings have done their
best to bludgeon home this aspect of NPOV: that all significant views
on a disputed topic need mention.

("Significant" then may become a bone of contention^Weditorial discussion.
Creationism, for example, is of tremendous social and political importance,
but is very unlikely to achieve significant play in almost any scientific
article about biology. Osama bin Laden has strong views on America and on
Jews, but his views are unlikely to play a great, if any, role in [[Jew]]
or [[United States]]; they will only end up in more directly relevant
articles because most editors would find it *intolerably stupid* otherwise.
The view that Australia is in fact a republic is so insignificant a view
by numbers that it is only advocated as [[original research]]. Etc. Etc.)

- d.


body:
Tom Haws wrote:

> I don't think it would hurt our process for certain talk pages to say,
> "The content of this article is subject to the following binding
> editorial decisions of the Content Arbitration Committee:"
> Each decision could include an expiration date.

I don't think we're at that stage yet. NPOV still has far too much
life in it.

(Remember: all new policy is [[m:Instruction creep]] until proven
otherwise.)

- d.


from_name: Christiaan Briggs

subject: [Wikipedia-l] NYPL Digital Gallery Open to Public

body:
There's a discussion on Wikinews with regard to whether or not the NYPL
actually has the right to put restrictions on PD images:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Talk:
New_York_Public_Library_opens_collection_of_275%2C000_digital_images

I've emailed the Electronic Frontier Foundation to see what their
opinion is.

Christiaan


from_name: Karl A. Krueger

body:
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 11:13:37PM +0000, Abe Sokolov wrote:
> Even if public perception is unfounded, Wikipedia still cannot afford
> to disregard it. After all, it matters insofar as our work having any
> meaning. If Wikipedia editors are the only people taking Wikipedia
> articles and processes seriously, then we've all been wasting our
> time.

A lack of credibility is not a problem that Wikipedia currently has.
Indeed, Wikipedia's credibility is if anything on the rise, as more
people have heard of it through the media, academic discussions, and so
on.  Remember that we started from zero, not from Britannica; and thus
that everything we have built in terms of credibility is a long step up
from the -nothing- that many assumed Wikipedia could accomplish.

What's more, greater credibility will not come by establishing more and
more arcane policies and procedures, making a greater bureaucratic
hassle of the project.  It will, rather, come through the production and
presentation of high-quality articles.  The Featured Articles project
has a great deal more to say about Wikipedia's credibility than the
Arbitration Committee.  The former is a way of presenting our very best
work; the latter is simply a tool to help fend off the worst vandals,
liars, harassers, and persistent abusers of power.

It is unfortunate, but true, that bad news gets more coverage than good,
and that people can get more attention and name-recognition within the
project by mistreating others and breaking things than by producing good
material.  Thankfully this does not have to the image that Wikipedia
presents to the world.  The excellent front page material, the featured
articles, and other mechanisms that promote excellent work are what give
Wikipedia its credibility -- and all the trolls, POV-pushers, and other
abusers are not going to degrade that.

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


from_name: Abe Sokolov

body:
Daniel Mayer maveric149 at yahoo.com wrote:

"There is no need for a new committee. The existing ArbCom just needs to be
more
aggressive at enforcing content policies and guidelines. We did not tackle
these issues at first due to the fact that we did not have clear community
support and many feared giving us that power. The mood now has changed and I
think the community has a great deal more trust in the ArbCom and the ArbCom
itself is better-prepared to deal with this type of issue."

It would be great if the arbcom would become more aggressive at enforcing
content policies and guidelines. However, there is no evidence that it has
the capacity to give equal weight to content and behavioral policies,
especially considering the slow (but at least increasingly rapid) pace at
which it still handles cases on behavior-- its traditional sphere. A second
committee would mean more capacity and more expertise to handle the policies
that always been difficult for the arbcom to address (No original research,
Cite sources, NPOV, Verifiability, et. al.).

Aside from the issue of capacity, there's also the matter of credibility,
particularly public credibility. Even if the Wikipedia community has more
trust in the arbcom now, we cannot infer based on that observation that
Wikipedia readers or the public will hold it in any high esteem. Frankly,
many people (to say the least) would be highly skeptical of an encyclopedia
whose editorial concerns are officially handled by teenagers. (This isn't
calling into question the abilities of the teenage arbom members; IMO at
least two of them have more sense in them than many of the older members put
together.) Even if public perception is unfounded, Wikipedia still cannot
afford to disregard it. After all, it matters insofar as our work having any
meaning. If Wikipedia editors are the only people taking Wikipedia articles
and processes seriously, then we've all been wasting our time.

A second arbitration mechanism would not threaten the influence of a single
editor. It would only serve to bolster public faith in Wikipedia content
among those skeptical of the project due to the present lack of a
professionalized system of editorial review, giving more meaning to the work
of all involved in the project. In the end, everyone involved in Wikipedia
would have more real influence. By boosting capacity, Wikipedia governance
would also be more responsive and efficient when it comes to dealing with
the interests of serious editors.

-172

_________________________________________________________________
Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>--- "steven l. rubenstein" <rubenste at ohiou.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>You know, a new committee with clear procedural rules will itself begin
>>generating clearer ideas about how to deal with disagreements over what
>>constitutes original research, too,
>>
>>
>There is no need for a new committee. The existing ArbCom just needs to be more
>aggressive at enforcing content policies and guidelines. We did not tackle
>these issues at first due to the fact that we did not have clear community
>support and many feared giving us that power. The mood now has changed and I
>think the community has a great deal more trust in the ArbCom and the ArbCom
>itself is better-prepared to deal with this type of issue.
>
>
It has nothing to do with trusting the ArbCom.  Disciplinary issues need
to be kept separate from content issues.  Otherwise the content will
develop the appearance of being decided by a cabal.  The disciplinary
role is necessary, and dealing with problem characters often requires
harsh measures.  That mentality can too easily creep into other decisions.

Content issues need to retain fluidity and permanent negotiability.
Saying that the ArbCom made a decision six months age about the content
is a drop dead argument that prevents any participation by those who
were not a part of the original debate.

Ec


body:
Brian M wrote:

>>That is a role that mediation should play.
>>
>>-- mav
>>
>>
>Why separate "mediation" from "arbitration"?   Why such complicated
>dispute resolution procedures?    It is almost as if we want to make
>it hard and complicated to resolve disputes, something you can only do
>if you are determined.   What is the logic behind that?
>
>Wouldn't mediation work better if the parties knew that the mediator
>seeking a resolution to a dispute/behaviour problem had the ready
>means to impose a sanction on any parties deemed not to be
>cooperating?     Iron fist in the velvet glove.   At present, in the
>case of real a behaviour problem (as opposed to a good-faith
>difference of opinion) mediation is a hoop people have to jump through
>to get to arbitration, and anyway it is broken.
>
>
When a mediator needs to use an iron fist he has proved himself
incompetent as a mediator, and should be fired.

Ec


from_name: Zigger

subject: [Wikitech-l] (kein Betreff)

body:
Coincidentally, a patch for this previously reported issue was
supplied and applied to CVS for both HEAD and REL1_4 a few days ago.
See http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1618

-- Zigger

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 13:23:05 +0100 (CET), Joel Wiesmann wrote:
> ...
> There seems to be a problem with custom namespaces and the SpecialAllpages.php
> (tested: mediawiki 1.4rc1). Custom namespaces will not show up in the selectbox.
> ...
> Here's the patch for a working dropdown list:
> ...
> Hope this helps and gets accepted :). For me it works fine! Unfortunately I'm
> not very familliar with CVS, so this is _maybe_ already fixed.
> ...


from_name: Rick

body:
--- Brian M <brian1954 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I am sure Jimbo did not just shoot from the hip, and
> anybody trying to
> sort out what is happening would still need "to go
> through the edits".
>   But what isn't needed is the whole
> quasi-legalistic  infrastructure
> that the arbcom has evolved
> with "cases", "petitioners", "respondents",
> "recusals", "votes to
> accept or deny cases",  "injunctions", "evidence",
> etc, etc,      It
> is silly.
>
> I have no idea of the AC history, but somewhere back
> when the arbcom
> was getting rolling it took a wrong turn and now we
> have this
> tremendously heavy process.  The basic need is
> simply to be able to
> get  an experienced and level-headed Wikipedian who
> is respected and
> trusted by the community involved in various
> situations who can (1)
> warn people that they are out of line and try to
> nudge them towards
> correcting their behaviour; and/or (2) impose a
> sanction if the
> misbehaviour continues, with the easily-obtained
> backing of a
> committee that represents the community consensus,
>

I COMPLETELY endorse everything Brian is saying here.
The entire process is so cumbersome as to be daunting
and not worth the effort, especially since the arbcom
will bend over backwards to do everything they can to
make sure that the most egregious of vandals and edit
warriors are treated with more respect than the valid
editors who have to deal with them.

RickK

__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/


from_name: John Lee

body:
JAY JG wrote:

>> From: "Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport at bluebottle.com>
>>
>> Theresa Knott said:
>> >> It wouldn't artificially discourage people from making legitimate
>> >> complaints for fear that they too would be penalised or at a minimum
>> >> tempbanned from editing an article until the hearing is complete.
>> >
>> > Is there any evidence that this has actually happened in the past?
>> > Certainly requests for arbitration appear to come thick and fast. I am
>> > not aware of a legit complaint not having been made out of fear.
>>
>> I think it is more the case that people have gone to arbcom and not
>> obtained quite the result they expected.
>
>
> Actually, you are incorrect; there are obvious ArbCom cases right now
> that no-one is willing to bring before ArbCom.
>
> Jay.

Perhaps you could present a specific example or two?

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])


from_name: Sj

body:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 18:14:13 -0700, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> Although NewYorkTimes.com is going through a slow patch, this week we pulled
> even, almost ready to break into the top 100.

There was a cute exchange about this at the WebCred conference about
Wikipedia buckling under catastrophic success (with people from the
Times in the room) :

======
Jonathan Zittrain: "If the front page of the New York Times were a
wiki that just froze to the version that existed at 6:00 a.m. ...
they'd have a different set of problems than you would, and I worry
that you are about to inherit those."

Jimmy Wales: "Yeah, they might... but our traffic is very, very close
now to the traffic of the New York Times."

Dave Winer:	"And it never freezes."
======    http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/webcred/?p=66  (day 2 PM)

I'm sad to see that the Main Page has been frozen now for such a long time.
That was not meant to be permanent, and I hope we can unfreeze it again soon.

SJ


from_name: Jochen Magnus

subject: [Wikitech-l] prayer mill: no recent downloadable wikipedia

body:
Yes I know, I am working like a preyer mill: But there is no
downloadable cur_table newer than Feb 9.

Please understand, that for us as a mirror operator (and Wikipedia
propagandist), a pretty recent database is important.

Sorry

jo


from_name: Travis McArthur

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki Issue - Create table fails

body:
Hello,

I submitted the following problem within the mediawiki irc chat, and it
was suggested I mail this list to get some help.  Please excuse me if this
problem is on my end and an obvious issue, I have not managed to locate it
in any FAQs.

The basic issue is that the installation of MediaWiki fails with the
following messages:

PHP 4.3.10: ok

PHP server API is apache2handler; ok, using pretty URLs
(index.php/Page_Title)

Have XML / Latin1-UTF-8 conversion support.

PHP is configured with no memory_limit.

Have zlib support; enabling output compression.

Found ImageMagick: /usr/local/bin/convert; image thumbnailing will be
enabled if you enable uploads.

Installation directory: /usr/local/webroot/users/travis/wiki

Script URI path: /wiki

Connected as root (automatic)

Connected to database... 4.1.10; enabling MySQL 4 enhancements

Created database wiki

Creating tables...Query "CREATE TABLE user ( user_id int(5) unsigned NOT
NULL auto_increment, user_name varchar(255) binary NOT NULL default '''',
user_real_name varchar(255) binary NOT NULL default '''', user_rights
tinyblob NOT NULL default '''', user_password tinyblob NOT NULL default
'''', user_newpassword tinyblob NOT NULL default '''', user_email tinytext
NOT NULL default '''', user_options blob NOT NULL default '''',
user_touched char(14) binary NOT NULL default '''', UNIQUE KEY user_id
(user_id) ) PACK_KEYS=1" failed with error code "BLOB/TEXT column
'user_rights' can't have a default value".

Obviously, mysql does support this.  The first time I got this error, I
modified tables.sql to add a "use wiki:" line, and fed it into the CLI
mysql client, and it created everything.  I did the same with interwiki
and indexes, and proceeded to hack config/index.cgi to force it to
continue as though the database had just been initialized, the tables just
created, and it needed to setup the DB (I commented out the lines which
executed tables.sql et al, and added a && 0 to the if statement which
checks if tables exist).  This let it go a bit further, to the point where
it would initialize the mediawiki namespace, where it would then fail with
yet another improper query error.

My initial thoughts were that perhaps my php installation was corrupt, I
reinstalled it (upgraded it, actually, from 4.3.8 to 4.3.10) and specified
the correct mysql header location.  All other php scripts work flawlessly,
as dose mysql.

Below is the output from php -v, apache -v, mysqld -V, and uname -prs.

PHP 4.3.10 (cli) (built: Mar  6 2005 08:53:09)
Copyright (c) 1997-2004 The PHP Group
Zend Engine v1.3.0, Copyright (c) 1998-2004 Zend Technologies

Server version: Apache/2.0.53
Server built:   Feb 10 2005 11:08:01

/usr/local/libexec/mysqld  Ver 4.1.10 for portbld-freebsd5.3 on i386
(FreeBSD port: mysql-server-4.1.10)

FreeBSD 5.3-RELEASE i386

Thanks alot,
Travis

--
Travis McArthur
Systems Administrator


body:
Daniel Mayer maveric149 at yahoo.com wrote:

"But having a separate standing committee would be redundant, especially due
to the fact that any one case will likely involve accusations of breaking
both content and behavioral policies and guidelines."

Not necessarily. Two committees would has separate jurisdictions with the
right to accept and act on the cases that are sent to them according to
their own rules and procedures. The new committee would handle disputes over
articles concerning content (No original research, Cite sources, NPOV,
Verifiability, et. al.); the existing committee, however, was born with and
will always have an emphasis on behavioral policies.

For the sake of argument, even if the existing committee will be able to
start handling everything, it seems likely to be quite slow and cumbersome.
Calling on academics and and professionals as 'fact finders' may boost its
capacity, but it still takes a great deal of time to call on fact checkers,
wait for them to assemble, wait for them to deliberate, wait for them to
reach an opinion, assess their opinion, and then decide how to act on it. A
great deal of time will be consumed just by waiting for the current
arbitrators and the 'fact finders' to communicate with each other. However,
by specializing in certain policy areas, two committees would bring in more
people with more authority to work more expeditiously in the areas in which
they specialize.

The idea of convening special panels of non-involved people for certain
cases is great and I fully support it. While I think that a second mechanism
would work better, Mav's ideas are at least a step in the right direction,
and they're better than nothing.

-172

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/


from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
--- Abe Sokolov <abesokolov at hotmail.com> wrote:
> The idea of convening special panels of non-involved people for certain
> cases is great and I fully support it. While I think that a second mechanism
> would work better, Mav's ideas are at least a step in the right direction,
> and they're better than nothing.

Then let's try this first - see if it works. It would take many months for a
new committee to be up and running effectively - it took the ArbCom a year.
People who serve in a few special panels would be in the best position to form
a separate committee if that is eventually deemed necessary.

-- mav

__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/


body:
--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> It has nothing to do with trusting the ArbCom.  Disciplinary issues need
> to be kept separate from content issues.  Otherwise the content will
> develop the appearance of being decided by a cabal.  The disciplinary
> role is necessary, and dealing with problem characters often requires
> harsh measures.  That mentality can too easily creep into other decisions.

I'm talking about the ArbCom deciding if a user has violated our content
polices and guidelines. That is very much within the authority of the ArbCom.
We have just moved slowly so far into enforcing those policies.

-- mav

__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/


from_name: Sean Barrett

in_reply_to:
<422D9C29.9030005@thingy.apana.org.au> (message from David Gerard
	on Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:35:53 +0000)

body:
> Are you saying the idea should not have even been *considered*?

This thread has given me the idea that there are at least a few
Wikipedians who feel that they have the Divine Right of Long-Standing
Editors, and as such are permanently beyond reproach in all things.
That the ArbComm might dare to question their actions is not merely an
insult -- it is cause to disband the ArbComm and permanently hard ban
the individual traitors who did not kowtow to their exalted status.

--
 Sean Barrett     | Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareis.
 sean at epoptic.com |


from_name: David Sabel

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: upto11.net

body:
> Out of interest, are you able to add a notice about the GFDL to that
> FAQ? I'd hate your users to get pissed of that they didn't know about
> the GFDL!
>
> TBSDY

We just did a promotion last night where, among other changes, we added a
footer to every wikipedia article that says

" This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. "

Is that sufficient, or should we add an FAQ as well?

Thanks,

David


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
AndyL said:
>
> I have stated once already that someone I know who was working on a
> complaint against Herschelkrustofsky had second thoughts upon seeing
> tempbans implemented (or pondered) in other cases against complainants
> (specifically my complaint against ArmchairVexillologistDon in which
> the ArbComm was initially considering tempbanning *both of us* from all
> articles related to Canada until the arbitration was concluded - this
> was being proposed before any evidence had even been heard

Why is this a problem?  For a tempban to stick, the arbitrators all have
to agree to it.  If you don't trust them to make a fair decision in such a
case, you certainly can't trust them to arbitrate.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Evidence as to VFD being unusably big

body:
csherlock at ljh.com.au said:
>
> Really? I have broadband and I have lots of difficulty working with
> this  page. Firefox and IE takes ages to render the darned thing.

lynx is your friend. :)

Seriously, though, I think we should do David's suggestion and have a page
of links to nominations by day.  This would be a very easy edit; the only
difficulties would be explaining how it works and providing navs (if
required) on each day page to the other days. It would be nice to have a
"click here to move to next day" link.


body:
on 3/8/05 7:35 AM, David Gerard at dgerard at gmail.com wrote:

> AndyL wrote:
>
>> I have stated once already that someone I know who was working on a
>> complaint against Herschelkrustofsky had second thoughts upon seeing
>> tempbans implemented (or pondered) in other cases against complainants
>> (specifically my complaint against ArmchairVexillologistDon in which the
>> ArbComm was initially considering tempbanning *both of us* from all articles
>> related to Canada until the arbitration was concluded - this was being
>> proposed before any evidence had even been heard
>
>
> Temporary injunctions are for the specific purpose of keeping the peace.
> I'll also note that this one did not in fact pass, or even close. Are you
> saying the idea should not have even been *considered*?
>
>
> - d.
>

It didn't come to pass because I intervened but I only intervened because I
happened to notice it. I had been inclined to not check the arbcomm pages in
question after having made my complaint about Don and no one alerted me on
my talk page that such a proposal was being made. Considering Don's
behaviour and considering that the conflict was occurring only on two or
three pages related to the very narrow topic of red ensign flags the
proposal to temp ban both of us from *all* articles pertaining to Canada (ie
thousands of pages) was excessive and had I not noticed it (ie because I was
busy with something else for a few days) it would have passed. So no, it
should never have been considered. In fact, I believe it was on the verge of
being approved (or technically even had the needed number of endorsers)
until I intervened so this isn't a case of one arbitrator making a wild
proposal and no one else picking it up but of the ArbComm panel agreeing to
a proposal until the affected party noticed what was going on and said, in
essence, "are you guys nuts?"

Andy


from_name: Stephen Forrest

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Queen Elizabeth II

body:
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:54:20 +0000, actionforum at comcast.net
<actionforum at comcast.net> wrote:

> Now if the queen or governer general could invalidate the constitution, you might have an argument that Austrailia was not a republic or true constitutional monarchy.  The fact that the constitution gives these positions their limited roles, makes Austrialia a type of republic, more correctly referred to as a constitutional monarchy, because that is more specific.

As I said before, I am not aware of any commonly accepted definition
of 'republic' which includes constitional monarchies.

In any case, I really doubt that everyone on this list is interested
in this discussion.  I suggest [[Talk:Australia]] or
[[Talk:Republic]].

Steve


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

body:
From: David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>
>Temporary injunctions are for the specific purpose of keeping the peace.

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 13:50:10 +0000, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> An editor in good standing feeling mistreated is the sort of thing that
> makes volunteers fade away, so all this is a matter of concern. Temp
> injunctions need to be applied with care.

David, one arbitrator has strongly implied that the policy of
tempbanning has been adopted in order to discourage editors from
seeking arbitration, and not simply to keep the peace. S/he has
written of tempbanning: "I strongly encourage you to complain about
that practice widely and to discourage others from seeking
arbitration.  If you can build a consensus against us, we will either
change or be replaced," and "[P]lease remember that arbitration is not
something that people should want or feel good about doing. It is a
serious step that can result in a Wikipedia Death Sentence; if these
temporary injunctions make disputants decide to try a little harder to
avoid bringing their squabbles before the ArbComm, so much the
better."

It's a good thing to discourage squabbles from being brought to the
arbcom; but not all disputes are simply squabbles, and you may be
discouraging genuine disputants too, in cases where the dispute
resolution would be for the benefit of Wikipedia.

Sarah


body:
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 16:16:18 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway  That doesn't
make sense to me.  I do understand the argument that tempbans
> where seen as unjust could drive away good editors, but so can seriously
> bad behavior.  If a week's rest from editing a few articles is *worse*
> than editing those articles in the presence of the behavior about which
> one wants to make a complaint, I just don't see that the complaint can be
> that serious.

Tony, you'd be right if tempbanning were the only problem, but there
is a perception (as is clearly shown by this thread) that there is a
philosophy of seeking to punish both sides regardless of the issues,
in an effort to bend over backwards to be fair - which I argue is
actually leading to unfairness in some cases. It is this philosophy
that is worrying, and the issue of tempbanning everyone is simply one
example of it. Also, in Andy's case, the proposed tempban covered
areas not affected by the dispute, and was therefore perceived to be a
pre-judgment punishment, not just a peace-keeping measure. In matters
of justice, perceptions matter as much as reality.

Sarah


body:
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 16:32:19 +0000, Theresa Knott <theresaknott at gmail.com> wrote:
> That's not how i feel about temp bans. If I thought that a temp ban
> was being proposed as a punishment for bring a a case to the AC then I
> would vote against it. If a case was not worthy of my time, i wouldn't
> need to punish people for bringing it to my attention, I'd just reject
> the request and be done with it. Do remember that when an arbitrator
> speaks on a talk page or in an email they are doing so as an
> individual, they do not represent the whole of the AC.

Thanks, Theresa, it's helpful to have that clarified.

Sarah


from_name: JAY JG

body:
>From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
>
>JAY JG wrote:
>
>>>From: "Charles Matthews" <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
>>>
>>>JAY JG wrote
>>>
>>> > Perhaps the [[Wikipedia:No original research]] page needs to be
>>>updated with
>>> > examples which make that point that if it really is that simple,
>>>someone
>>> > else will have done the work for you already, and all you need to do
>>>is
>>> > quote them.
>>>
>>>Literally speaking, conversion of temperatures from Fahrenheit to Celsius
>>>would fall foul of this.  And numerous other things: such as conversion
>>>of
>>>dates out of one calendar system into another, metrication, currency
>>>conversion, inverting family relationships from 'nephew' to 'uncle' ...
>>
>>No, that's a strawman argument.  "Deductive reasoning" becomes original
>>research when it is used to build a case against a position presented in
>>an article, not when used to do unit conversions.  Now if you were to
>>assert that based on genetics and "simple deductive reasoning" that uncles
>>were more closely related to nephews than aunts were to nieces, that would
>>be original research, and you'd have to find some source which supported
>>it.
>
>That's certainly an extremist view.

Ray, labels like this aren't helpful.

>It implies that a crackpot theory is acceptable as long as it has
>previously been published somewhere else.

Nothing of the sort.  The "NPOV policy" indicates that extreme minority
views need not be presented in an article, so that issue is well covered.

>However, if the public thought that the theory was so ridiculous that they
>felt it a waste of time to dispute it we would not be allowed to publish a
>refutation on the grounds that it was original research.

You wouldn't need to refute it, since you wouldn't need to cite it in the
first place, as above.

>You seem to forget the original purpose for the rule.

I don't think so; what do you think I have forgotten?

Jay.


from_name: actionforum at comcast.net

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Exeunt 172

body:
------------- Original message --------------
> Delirium wrote:
> > Sounds like another POV-pushing PhD holder who's annoyed that everyone
> > doesn't just say "oh, you are an 'expert', do with the articles as you
> > wish".
> >
> > (And anyone who's read any history articles by 172 can attest to the
> > fact that they were highly propagandistic, generally turning into
> > outright apologies, if not screeds, for left-wing dictatorships.)
> >
> > -Mark
>
> What a load of crap. Ever read the history of Russia? Yeah, that's now a
> FA article. You can't GET FA articles that are POV screeds.
>
> TBSDY

Yes, you can get FA articles that are POV, and History of Russia is just such an example.  It's POV language was just recently improved and there are many more criticisms/changes such as that which are yet to be made.    Selection of material or focus can be a source of POV, and yet can subtlely masquerade as NPOV, because the POV problem is not with the information included, but with the selectivity of what was included and what was left out.  Strangely, that article also includes superatives, which should have been a red flag.

There are very citations of sources within the article which, while making for easier reading, usually indicates that something has limited peer review, perhaps the community interested in the subject shared the same POV, or there was just lack of interest in general, allowing authorial territoriality to achieve free reign.

                                           -- Silverback


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikitech-l] My orphanware

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

As some of you may know, a German company (DirectMedia) is currently
working on publishing a snapshot of the German wikipedia on DVD. They
use XML as their internal format.

To help them out, I patched together a database-to-XML converter. Turns
out, though, that they've just written their own.

So, this converter is sitting there [1] without a job ;-)

If you have a Windoze installation running, with access to a MediaWiki
(pre-1.5) database, you might want to try it. It takes the database
parameters and generates a single xml file (out.xml in the installation
directory) containing the XML of all the articles in the main namespace
from that database. It can also automatically reslove templates, if
desired. Installation and running is dead-easy.

It does *not* use the Flex/Bison-parser (I have developed a slight Bison
allergy when exposed to it;-) but works quite well otherwise. It also
generates XML extremely similar to what the Bison parser would do. I ran
about 10000 articles from a de database dump, and the generated XML was
valid.

The software is GPL, but I didn't upload the source anywhere yet. I can
mail you source and instructions if desired.

A slight variation of this software might be quite useful a number of
projects. For example, it could esaily be altered to take a number of
article titles and generate XML only for these. The XML could then be
converted to PDF or whatever.

Just letting you know,
Magnus

[1] http://www.magnusmanske.de/stuff/StaticWikiInstaller.exe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCLW3OCZKBJbEFcz0RArDCAJ9sndURQ3bt/Mt9TDaCNz2aMOjIZQCfS78E
8Q5m+vQ+hFB+6QHwqOsMBsw=
=DKB3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----