from_name: jayjg

subject: [WikiEN-l] Clearing the air regarding SlimVirgin.

body:
On 10/7/06, Nathan <lists at home.nathanr.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm a blocked user (but I'm not here to discuss that) and I've been
> accused of something (else) that I didn't do so I'm here to clear the air:
>
> Please direct your attention to
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cyde&diff=79893307&oldid=79889878
>
> Specifically, this comment:
>
> ":::Your cryptic "cough, Nathan, cough" is, I take it, a reference to
> e-mails I supposedly sent to Nathandotcom. That was a banned user using my
> e-mail address, and he did the same to several other admins. The abuse was
> reported to his university who managed to identify him and it has stopped.
> Like Cyde, you need to learn all the facts before commenting on issues.
> Cyde, you're now calling me a "liar" over an issue that is my business,
> not yours, and that I know about, and you don't. I have asked you many
> times to stop raising the issue, stop gossiping about me and others, and
> to stop attacking me. I am hereby asking you again.
> [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]  color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 18:56, 6
> October 2006 (UTC)"
>
> Quite honestly, I'm sick of being accused of things I didn't do by
> arrogant admins who think they're right.
>
> Let me clear the air with the following points:
>
> 1) While I may have something against those involved in the situation that
> led to my blocking, I have absolutely nothing against any other admin of
> Wikipedia, save for Cyde (who was involved). Therefore I have no logical
> reason to harass any admin on Wikipedia.
>
> 2) I do not attend college or university nor have I ever in the past. When
> my userpage was visible, I clearly mentioned who my employer was. I'm the
> Director of Technical Services of xytra.net (Services Internet Xytra SENC
> of Gatineau, Quebec - this can be verified by e-mailing nathan at xytra.net
> or by asking info at xytra.net or support at xytra.net). Therefore these
> accusations that I have harassed any admin of Wikipedia are purely false.
> As I have said over and over, if someone's going to accuse me of
> something, at least provide proof. Proof wasn't given and it makes
> SlimVirgin out to be just ranting about nothing (apologies if this can be
> read as a personal attack).
>
> The only places I access the Internet from are: my place of residence, my
> place of work and the home of my two co-workers.
>
> The only times I have ever used universities or colleges for Internet
> access are:
> * 2001-2002 when my girlfriend (at the time) attended university
> * late 1990's when I lived in Toronto
>
> 4) Just because someone forged the e-mail addresses of admins and me being
> a blocked user, does that automatically mean "Nathanrdotcom has reason to
> harbour negative feelings towards Wikipedia as a whole and believes he has
> a reason to take it out on random admins"? No, of course it doesn't. Now I
> admit I have a mood disorder but I don't appreciate being accused of
> things I didn't do. I don't attack anyone without provocation. I have had
> a talk with Jimbo about my block - why would I contradict myself and start
> attacking random admins? It just doesn't add up.
>
> 5) I have used the Internet since 1995 and consider my knowledge of how
> things work[tm] to be better than average. On the Internet, anyone can
> forge anyone's identity, e-mail address or etc and deflect the blame to
> anyone else. In other words: Anyone can send an e-mail and claim to be me,
> that doesn't mean in any way that I was the person responsible. There are
> enough people on Wikipedia who dislike me (and plenty who have read that
> defamatory "article" about me on a..less than reputable Wiki and wish to
> manufacture some stunt to blame me for).
>
> I really resent the implication that I would go around attacking other
> admins without provocation and I want it said for the record that I
> haven't been involved in such activities.
>
> Honestly, SlimVirgin owes me an apology for her baseless accusations but
> it's highly unlikely that I'll get one.
>
> If anyone has ANY questions regarding the above, I would appreciate
> it if you would please e-mail me and I'll answer rather than you making up
> your own information and calling it true.
>
> Thank you for your time,
> Nathan (User:Nathanrdotcom)
> Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

You have completely misunderstood these comments. *Another editor*
(not you) was forging headers, sending fake e-mails pretending to be
various admins, requesting new passwords hundreds of times, and
generally stirring up trouble. *That other editor* (not you) was
attending a University, the abuse was reported, and *that other
editor* (not you) was indentified and the abuse was stopped.

Jay.


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Mark Wagner

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

body:
On 10/9/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Kris & Adrian wrote:
> > So it did have a reference to WP:OFFICE then.
> >
> > I'm sorry Jimmy but what you've written above has to be the worst case
> > of whitewashing ever.
> >
> > "It wasn't WP:OFFICE but it was."
>
> AGF, please.  That is not what I said.  Danny has made it very clear in
> the past that he has two accounts.  One he uses for WP:OFFICE actions,
> i.e. actions taken temporarily by the office based on some emergency
> situation (usually but not always legal in nature).  And his normal
> account, which he uses as every other editor on the project.

The problem is that the consequences of guessing wrong about if a
particular edit by the [[User:Danny]] account is a WP:OFFICE action
being kept discrete or not are so severe that nobody wants to risk it.
 As a result, any sudden, wildly-out-of-process action by either
account is assumed to be Office-related.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


list: foundation-l

from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Foundation-l] Fundraising season launch

body:
Sebastian Moleski wrote:

>On 10/10/06, Aphaia <aphaia at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>2. Concerning comments on past fundraisings, not every donors of us
>>didn't seem parts of editing community and some thought themselves not
>>parts of the community but just visitors/users. Before starting a new
>>fundraising campaign, we are better to remind whom we will ask a help.
>>
>>
>Is this meant to imply that we should not look for donors who aren't
>actively involved in our projects?
>
I wouldn't read it that way.  Having information about the finances does
give people a greater sense of belonging, but the level of funding that
is needed for such a large operation is not going to be covered by what
the little people can afford.

Significant donors probably have other things to to with their time than
edit; they have a life.  Nevertheless they believe in Wikipedia, and
would like to help in the only way that they can by making donations.
In return it's perfectly fair to demand fiscal responsibility.  They
understand financial statements, and reviewing these reports will be
what will convince them that their donations are being responsibly used.

Ec


list: wikimedia-l


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wikitech-l] Insight into users' behaviour

body:
Hoi,
When the messages are translated, they are translated as literally as
possible in order not to misrepresent what is intended. The messages are
typically created during the development stage. Saying that overly
verbose messages are outside of what developers do is not necessary
helpful. It is the English interface that is leading in this way and I
am sure that the English community is less active in messages than any
of the other language communities because they have not the same need to
change things.
Thanks,
     GerardM

Simetrical wrote:
> Very interesting usability analysis.  We should take this stuff to
> heart.  A lot should be fairly simple to implement (although much is
> non-development, e.g., too-verbose messages/help).
>
> On 10/10/06, Nick Jenkins <nickpj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Page 13, the "[Edit]" links are too far up from the horizontal line that marks a new section (thus leading new users to think they are for the section above, not the section below).
>>
>> Tried adding:
>> ----------------
>> div.editsection { vertical-align: bottom; }
>> ----------------
>> to main.css ; that made no difference (in Firefox). Any CSS guru want to indicate whether it's possible to do this (move the "[Edit]" text down closer to the horizontal new section line), and if so maybe how ?
>>
>
> http://bugs.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4525
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>


body:
Hoi,
The best place to trim the cruft from the messages is still the
Betawiki. From here many of the messages are translated for many many
languages. When the English is without cruft there, it will have a
healthy effect on the translation for so many projects.
Thanks,
   GerardM

http://nike.users.idler.fi/betawiki/Etusivu

David Gerard wrote:
> On 10/10/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/10/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
>
>>> There's something about some en: admins making them explain everything
>>> in mind-numbingly excessive detail. Something that would take a simple
>>>
>
>
>> I'd love to go over some of these excessively wordy messages and trim
>> them. Especially all the ones that go, "You can do X at the [[whatever
>> page]]". Instead of just "Click [[whatever page|here]] to do X".
>>
>
>
> Point me at a pile of them. [[Special:Allmessages]] is the entire
> Mediawiki: space.
>
>
>
>> (if I were an admin) :)
>>
>
>
> Heh. Check [[:en:WT:RFA]] for the latest on the horrors of RFA.
>
>
> - d.


from_name: Julian Fleischer

references:
<egaq0d$l7s$1@sea.gmane.org> <egb9bm$2f0$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<egbvjt$k6$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
> Our upload interface came under some heavy criticism from a usability
> expert at Wikimania hacking days. The point was well taken by the dev team,
> and we discussed ways to improve it at the time. In particular, we proposed
> to implement a wizard-style interface allowing upload to either commons or
> the local wiki.

XForms would be ideal to deal with it + and they can be implemented very fast.
Only problem is the lack of support - but there's a solution for simulating
XForms-Behaviour using AJAX:
http://ajaxforms.sourceforge.net/

Introduction to XForms:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/2003/xforms-for-html-authors.html

Part 2 - handling "wizard style forms":
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/2006/xforms-for-html-authors-part2.html

greetings

--
Julian Fleischer aka Warhog
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 483 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20061010/ec207235/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikitech-l] Comments on the new wikipedias

body:
2006/10/10, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:

> The ISO standards are a bit more than just language standards. They are
> absolutely free to use them as is. You are not allowed to represent codes
> that you make up that confuse with what is in the standard. For ISO-639 this
> is absolutely reasonable given that there are over 7000 codes to start off
> with.

Which in my opinion would be a reason to go to our own system rather
than theirs.

> So if you refuse to use standards that you can not change start telling
> people in the city how many bunder your father has on his farm. You will
> find that many do not have an idea how wide an area that is.

So what? If I and my friends agree on what a bunder is, we can use it.
To the outside world I have to use something else. It's not like
Wikipedia is trying to tell others what language codes to use...

> Free is a relative thing. For some things it makes no sense at all to have
> them Free as in you can change it in any which way. The standard
> organisations have several ways in which they can be influenced. You can
> discuss with them about language issues and, that is what the language
> subcommittee of the WMF hopes to do. In the mean time, you have to realise
> that the ISO standards are an integral part of how the world wide web works.
> When you decide that you will not use these standards, I am afraid your
> computer will not be able to communicate with the Internet. Standards are
> standards for a reason.

Why that? Giving our languages another URL is not going to make them
suddenly unfindable to half the world.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


from_name: GerardM

body:
Hoi,
Actually it says in the database what language is used. These languages are
indeed the ISO codes. Google and other organisations will have a hard time
to know what language is ment if we were to have our "own" codes. Indeed we
would not be as popular if people did not find us on the search engines.

Another thing, I know that Brion will not allow for deviating from the
standard more than we already do.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 10/10/06, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2006/10/10, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
>
> > The ISO standards are a bit more than just language standards. They are
> > absolutely free to use them as is. You are not allowed to represent
> codes
> > that you make up that confuse with what is in the standard. For ISO-639
> this
> > is absolutely reasonable given that there are over 7000 codes to start
> off
> > with.
>
> Which in my opinion would be a reason to go to our own system rather
> than theirs.
>
> > So if you refuse to use standards that you can not change start telling
> > people in the city how many bunder your father has on his farm. You will
> > find that many do not have an idea how wide an area that is.
>
> So what? If I and my friends agree on what a bunder is, we can use it.
> To the outside world I have to use something else. It's not like
> Wikipedia is trying to tell others what language codes to use...
>
> > Free is a relative thing. For some things it makes no sense at all to
> have
> > them Free as in you can change it in any which way. The standard
> > organisations have several ways in which they can be influenced. You can
> > discuss with them about language issues and, that is what the language
> > subcommittee of the WMF hopes to do. In the mean time, you have to
> realise
> > that the ISO standards are an integral part of how the world wide web
> works.
> > When you decide that you will not use these standards, I am afraid your
> > computer will not be able to communicate with the Internet. Standards
> are
> > standards for a reason.
>
> Why that? Giving our languages another URL is not going to make them
> suddenly unfindable to half the world.
>
> --
> Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
> ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


references:
<452AE1BE.20901@solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu>
	<NABBJGECPILFNLFEAPIKCEDBJAAA.nickpj@gmail.com>
	<7c2a12e20610092336n6578989awb1e02082b2d4552e@mail.gmail.com>
	<452B6270.6010500@gmail.com>
	<fbad4e140610100219m45a6dea1ufa81edc0df26d7b4@mail.gmail.com>

body:
Hoi,
It may be that they are fiddled with. But not EVERY message needs
translating like it is needed for all other languages.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 10/10/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/10/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > helpful. It is the English interface that is leading in this way and I
> > am sure that the English community is less active in messages than any
> > of the other language communities because they have not the same need to
> > change things.
>
>
> Check [[:en:Special:Allmessages]]. The messages are fiddled with lots and
> lots.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Absolutely amazing...

body:
On 10/6/06, Rory Stolzenberg <rory096 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Posted simultaneously at WT:RFA
>
> I just saw the current message above the backlog tag at CAT:CSD. It reads:
> <!-- Remove the comments around the line below this message (Adminbacklog)
> to add a backlog tag. To remove the backlog tag, put comments tags around
> it. Usually, the tag is added if there are 100 or more articles (or 200
> articles & images combined) in this category. -->
> When did it become acceptable to have 100 articles or 200 total things in
> CAT:CSD? Since we now have backlogs more often, that means we should raise
> the criteria for what is actually a backlog? Is this why we're unnecessarily
> raising our standards on RfA, because if we don't have as many "backlogs,"
> but still have just as many pages waiting to be processed, then we don't
> need as many admins? This is appalling. We might as well stop promoting
> admins and just delete the backlog tag, then we wouldn't have any "backlogs"
> and nobody would have to do anything! Wouldn't that be nice? Ugh. This is
> just silly. We need to stop dicking around and start actually being
> productive. We're here to run an encyclopaedia, not pretend we're doing so
> and accomplishing absolutely nothing.

100 isn't as bad as you would think. A lot of it will be complex cases
and misslabled stuff.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] RFA has gone weird

body:
On 10/10/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> geni wrote
>
> > More arbcom members in future can be arranged.
>
> You can bring a horse to water, but can you make it drink?
>
> Charles
>

Past experence suggests no after the first month.

--
geni


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:RS rewrite proposed

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Top-to-bottom_rewrite_proposed

WP:RS is an essay, not a guideline. I can say that because the
incumbents are now blindly edit-warring to their preferred version,
even against corrections of grammatical errors. That's the sign of a
process that has become way too introverted and really, really needs
to be brought back in touch with the real world.

- d.


from_name: Platonides

subject: [Wikitech-l] installed fonts for SVG->PNG

body:
"Dschwen" wrote;
> By the way which SVG Converter are the wikipedia servers using? rsvg?
>
Yes, http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6576


from_name: Anthere

references:
<egd7co$vj2$1@sea.gmane.org> <452AB443.3080108@telus.net>
	<52BFEA5F-ED3E-4874-8F59-4545A5AE991D@scrubnugget.com>

body:
James Redmond wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2006, at 3:42 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>>It would be nice if proper financial reports were made available befor
>>the start of another round of fundraising.  We owe it to potential
>>donors to let them know that we believe in fiscal responsibility.
>
>
> Under US law, the Foundation is required to provide copies of its
> three most recent 990s* to anyone who requests them.  It should be
> trivial to post them in PDF format on the Foundation site as
> other .orgs have done.

Good idea :-)
Can you request those ?

ant

> A summary of audit findings may not be a bad idea either, but there
> is no obligation to post those.
>
> *"990" is the number of the form used by non-profit organizations to
> report their revenue and expenses to the US Internal Revenue Service,
> the federal tax agency.  (My new project: clean up the relevant en:
> article.)
>
> Jim Redmond
> jim at scrubnugget.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] wtf.

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility#The_use_of_sarcasm
>
>It may be bad practice, but making a rule is nonsensical. Unless
>smarminess and passive aggression are to be made blockable offences.
>
For some of our literalists, almost anything can be viewed as sarcasm.
They don't even understand irony. :-D

Ec


body:
"Steve Bennett" wrote:
> I'd love to go over some of these excessively wordy messages and trim
> them. Especially all the ones that go, "You can do X at the [[whatever
> page]]". Instead of just "Click [[whatever page|here]] to do X".
>
> (if I were an admin) :)
>
> Steve

Click here links are discouraged. Would be better to use "You can [[whatever
page|do X]]" though it doesn't seem terrible. If the message were "Click
[[Special:preferences|here]] you change the images size" the user would
arrive to his user profile, not related to images (have i changed it?). The
former at least implies that some browsing (go to 'files' tab) is needed.


subject: [WikiEN-l] de-vanity rewrite needed

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>Remember: that NYT article was just an amused look into the wacky
>world of Wikipedia. We're very mainstream now. (How on earth did that
>happen?!)
>
We're allowed at least one mistake. :-)

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] wtf.

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>On 10/10/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I asked more or less this question on the talk page just now,
>>and the original proposer claims that it "is not a 'ban' on
>>sarcasm per se", but rather "an explanation that sarcasm is a
>>form of rudeness, as some people seem not to be aware of it".
>>He proposes to include it in "the list of 'minor offenses',
>>alongside other similar forms of incivility."
>>
>>
>I note that he's reverted to his new version a few times against
>multiple dissent. Apparently sarcasm is much worse for the editing
>environment than actual bad editing practices.
>
>In fairness to him, I must note that we already have a [[m:Don't be
>dense|<s>rule</s> guideline]] against stupidity, which has in fact
>abolished all stupidity on Wikipedia and therefore removed any
>possible motivation editors may have to resort to sarcasm, even in
>extremis.
>
It's comforting to know that we have a rule which protects the proposer
of the anti-sarcasm rule from being stupid. :-)

Ec


from_name: Parker Peters

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

body:
On 10/10/06, Mark Wagner <carnildo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/9/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> > Kris & Adrian wrote:
> > > So it did have a reference to WP:OFFICE then.
> > >
> > > I'm sorry Jimmy but what you've written above has to be the worst case
> > > of whitewashing ever.
> > >
> > > "It wasn't WP:OFFICE but it was."
> >
> > AGF, please.  That is not what I said.  Danny has made it very clear in
> > the past that he has two accounts.  One he uses for WP:OFFICE actions,
> > i.e. actions taken temporarily by the office based on some emergency
> > situation (usually but not always legal in nature).  And his normal
> > account, which he uses as every other editor on the project.
>
> The problem is that the consequences of guessing wrong about if a
> particular edit by the [[User:Danny]] account is a WP:OFFICE action
> being kept discrete or not are so severe that nobody wants to risk it.
> As a result, any sudden, wildly-out-of-process action by either
> account is assumed to be Office-related.
>

Very true, very true.

Parker


from_name: Sarah

subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:RS rewrite proposed

body:
On 10/10/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Top-to-bottom_rewrite_proposed
>
> WP:RS is an essay, not a guideline. I can say that because the
> incumbents are now blindly edit-warring to their preferred version,
> even against corrections of grammatical errors. That's the sign of a
> process that has become way too introverted and really, really needs
> to be brought back in touch with the real world.
>
Wow, David, I've just seen your personal attacks on me on the RS talk page.

You should have checked the edit history. Just two days ago, I tried
to copy edit it with the summary "it needs to be tightened; there's
too much fluff, too much preaching, and some of it is wrong or hard to
understand," but I was reverted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources&diff=80182215&oldid=80181982

But you concluded from that: "Most of the problem with WP:RS is that
SlimVirgin sees the world in black and white, and will edit-war in
perfect good faith sincerity to her preferred version" and "Slim is a
librarian, not a researcher."

I've *never* defended the tone of RS, and have stayed away from it
recently because it's been turned into a such a mess.

I do defend NOR and V, however, because they're good policies, and
they keep the project safe.

I wish you'd stop assuming that you and only you understand how to
write and do research.

Sarah


subject: [WikiEN-l] de-vanity rewrite needed

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

This used to be called [[Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines]]. Are there any
good writers at a loose end and feeling strong enough to go through
this de-vanitising it?

- d.


from_name: Phil Sandifer

subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:RS rewrite proposed

body:
I've posted a detailed critique of RS to the talk page. I'm reposting
it here (still in wikiformatting) to make sure this issue gets the
wide attention it deserves, and because the nature of a talk page is
that it's going to become unreadable in 20 minutes or so.

===A somewhat interminable list of flaws===

As requested, an inventory of the flaws in this page. I hope you will
see that the flaws are deeply rooted, affecting the organization and
goal of the page. Not only is this an inadequate guideline for
sourcing, it is an inadequate foundation for a guideline. David is
correct - this needs to be rewritten from the ground up.

There are three basic flaws of this page, and they'll recur
throughout the below.

#The page arbitrarily attempts to rule out subjective judgment in
some cases while mandating it in others. The cases where it mandates
it are often masked as didactic guidelines that depend on phrases
like "reliable X," "common Y," or a mushy definition of fact. These
phrases could be defined in the same way that "reliable source" has
been, but such definitions would necessarily run into the same
problems of subjectivity. It's turtles all the way down.
#The page is, at numerous points, clearly written for a narrow range
of topics. When applied to other topics, it ranges from the merely
unhelpful to the completely wrong.
#Sections flatly contradict each other.

More details follow.

====Opening====

The opening section in general and paragraph three in particular
frame the page in an astonishingly flimflam way. The prospect of
unsourced information being removed is raised, but no serious
suggestion is given as to when "it is better to have no information
at all than to have information without sources." The result is to
give a vague and nonspecific warning when, in fact, a specific
warning is in order. We are, after all, talking (at least primarily)
about BLP here.

====Definitions====

The definition of fact is too iron-clad, relying ultimately on the
idea that nobody "seriously disputes" a claim. By this standard,
neither evolution nor global warming are facts. No serious
encyclopedia should assert that evolution is not fact, but this
definition of fact leads us inexorably to that conclusion.

The problem is exacerbated in the next definition, whereby opinions
are yolked to verifiability, or lack thereof. This contrast between
fact and opinion leaves a vast no man's land of verifiable
information that people still disagree with. Worse, this no man's
land is not self-evident. Does the statement "The US war in Iraq was
conducted based on false information regarding the presence of WMDs
in Iraq" count? It's verifiable, but it's not universally held.

To be clear, THERE IS NO WHITE LINE DEFINITION of fact and opinion
that will let us automatically tell if a statement should be phrased
as fact or as "X thinks Y." There are white line cases - Mars is a
planet, Christians believe that Jesus is the son of God. But there's
a vast middle ground that needs to be taken case by case.

Onward, the definitions of sources are based on old language, but
have been altered past the point of usefulness. The biggest problem
is the idea that primary sources require a reliable publisher. Here
the reliable publisher is being used as a sort of surrogate secondary
source - we're not using the primary source, but rather the primary
source under the imprimatur of Publisher X. All of this is justified
under the idea that "most primary-source material requires training
to use correctly." (An idea that is untrue. They require care to use
correctly. Training is often given to help people become more
careful, but it is not the training that is required. There is a
difference between using historical archives and running a nuclear
reactor.)

The problem is that the same can be said of secondary sources. Even
ones published by scholarly presses, which are, oddly, the only
secondary sources endorsed, creating a system whereby we are bound
entirely to scholarly sources on a topic. (Thankfully, the page is
not consistent enough to endorse that position throughout) Secondary
sources require just as much care as primary sources, and the
privledging of them is nonsense.

The original statement on primary sources from which all of this
derived stated that it's original research to organize primary
sources in a "novel" fashion. But it never set up such a wide-ranging
ban on primary sources, and with good reason.

Finally, the distinction makes no light of the fact that the primacy
of sources is contextual. An example of just how bad this can get:
There is a poem by Yeats called "Among Schoolchildren." The literary
critic Paul de Man has a famous reading of this poem that has been
published by scholarly presses. This reading is a secondary source in
terms of the Yeats poem. But despite its scholarly status, it's
tremendously contested, since de Man is a controversial
deconstructionist - widely recognized as brilliant and important, but
not always agreed with. ''Furthermore'', de Man's reading is a
secondary source ONLY on the topic of Yeats. It's a primary source on
the topic of de Man. And due to the nature of the field, secondary
sources on de Man's reading are virtually all critical - not because
his reading does not have adherents, but because publishing an
article reconfirming de Man's opinion is not considered a useful
publication, and so only contrary opinions get published.

This is neither an overly convoluted example, nor an unusual one.
There is an endless list of topics that require this level of thought
to untangle the nature of primary and secondary sources.

The hedging about using other encyclopedias is a pleasant and rare
example of actually molding the guideline to reality, but is done in
a uselessly clumsy way, amounting to "unsigned articles in
encyclopedias aren't good enough, but we use them anyway." The result
moves towards a hardline sourcing guideline with a thousand
asterisked exceptions. This is not a direction in which a usable
guideline can be found.

====Unattributed material====

The instruction not to remove material that you believe to be true
and common knowledge is important, but too weak. The reference to
[[Wikipedia:Common knowledge]] is distressing, both because it's
unclear to me that the example given (Earth's elliptical orbit)
satisfies the criteria there, and because that page seems to me to
have a section that tries to depricate [[WP:AGF]] in favor of
wikiquette. This use of common knowledge is equivalent to the fact/
opinion mess above - a situation where there is no white line is
being phrased as though there were a white line. In reality, the
judgments over what does and doesn't need a source are largely done
on a case-by-case basis - not by referring to a definition of common
knowledge.

This points towards a larger flaw in our understanding of sources. We
are basically set up to defer almost universally to the person asking
for a source. In reality, we need to recognize that source requests
can be made in bad faith or in error. There are many cases where the
answer to a request for a source is "No." Requesting a source needs
to not be fetishized as an innately reasonable act. Like adding
dispute tags or cleanup tags, it is often a reasonable and helpful
act. It can also be a trolling or stupid act.

====Beware false authority====

This section starts off by demonstrating the problem with valorizing
secondary sources - the process of vetting them is, in the end,
subjective, and often no easier than vetting primary sources. The
sole privledging of academic sources continues here, impovershing
fields with less academic research. (Popular culture, current events,
things related to homelife [Washing machines, cooking, furniture],
non-theoretical aspects of computing, etc).

The discussion of textbooks is valid only for the sciences and to a
lesser degree the social sciences (Where it is valid basically on an
undergraduate level only). It is utterly useless for the humanities,
where few college textbooks exist, and fewer still are assigned.

====Exceptional claims====

"Reputable news media" is yet another case of a deep well of
subjective judgment masquerading as a white line policy. "Reports of
a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing,
controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended"
is similarly flawed.

====Evaluating sources====

In many fields, it is nigh-impossible to publish a critical review of
anything. This would be one thing if bad books were simply not
reviewed, but in practice bad books are badly reviewed, with reviews
focusing excessively on positive points while ignoring negative points.

This does not, of course, mean that sources in those fields cannot be
evaluated.

====Check multiple sources====

Certainly nice practice, but is this, practically speaking, ever
going to happen?

====Issues to look out for====

The Stormfront/Al Qaeda/Socialist Workers Party comment is another
example of the thousand-exception style of policy writing.

====Independent secondary sources====

This seems, ultimately, to point towards coming up with an absolute
account. NPOV neither mandates nor encourages this.

====Online Sources: Evaluating Reliability====

The tone of this section is good, but it's trying to collapse all the
common sense into one section, and still suffers from a bias towards
academic sources. The main problem here is that, by being collapsed
into so small a section, it ends up going in circles, and ultimately
reads more as "Evaluating sources is hard" but doesn't really point
toward an endpoint.

====OS: Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet====

This section is just nonsense. Usenet, BBs, and wikis are perfectly
reliable as primary sources in lots of cases. [[Spoo]] is a featured
article based almost entirely on BB posts and Usenet, and nobody with
any knowledge about the topic would criticize a one of them.

====OS: Self-publication====

This policy does not fit sensibly with the previous section. Anyone
can start a blog, making the identity verification equally
problematic. This renders the two functionally equivalent. In some
cases, of course, we can verify a blogger's identity. We can also, in
some cases, verify a message board poster's identity. Also, the
professional researcher criteria is insufficient. Consider a
situation like Ronald Moore, creator of the new Battlestar Galactica.
He maintains a blog on the Sci-Fi Channel's website. This is clearly
a reliable source of information about the show, despite the fact
that he is not a "researcher" in any useful definition.

====OS: Self-publication on self====

The above BSG example (As well as the Spoo example) fail this test
too. No independent corroboration is going to be forthcoming on such
examples of information being released about a media product. (How
would this even be possible? No secondary source is going to base
itself on anything other than the statements of the creators.) This
is a BLP guideline masquerading as a larger guideline. A more sane
guideline would note that when a person's own account is contradicted
by other accounts, this should be noted - not to cast de facto
suspicion on a person's own account.

====OS:Self-published sources as secondary sources====

The blanket ban on using self-published sources as secondary sources
is in flat contradiction with the "professional researcher" clause
several sections up.

Why is extreme caution necessary to use, say, the Stormfront website
as a primary source about Stormfront's beliefs? This is silly. What
we're trying to prevent is allowing Stormfront to write their own
biography.

The note about company websites is not a matter of reliable sources -
it's a matter of NPOV. A general note that, when conclusions of
primary sources are contradicted by other sources, whether primary or
secondary, we do not defer wholly to the primary source would be both
sufficient and appropriate.

====Finding good sources====

A bit of a pep talk, and an odd one at that. We should be cautious
about suggesting that the ideal Wikipedia editor is going to devote
an inordinate amount of time to the task and go do book-based
research. It's nice, yes, but it does cut rather severely against the
notion that "anyone" can edit the encyclopedia, and is an affront to
the volunteer nature of the project. We should make sure this
guideline can be followed by the volunteers we have - not by the ones
we wish we had.

====BLP====

This is not a guideline related to sourcing.

====History====

This section is working more towards a notion of "authoritative"
sources instead of reliable ones. Authoritative sources are of
interest only if we are trying to present an absolute point of view.
We're not.

====Sciences====

The claim about "reporting material in different fields" is
problematic, due particularly to the rise of interdisceplenary journals.

Multiple studies have pointed to systemic flaws in the scientific
peer review system. This becomes a serious issue when dealing with
cutting-edge science, which is often difficult at best to summarize
in generalizable terms. The combination of these facts poses serious
problems for verifiability. (This is a case where we need to be
worried about primary sources - where a non-expert could not possibly
interpret them.)

The popular press does not cover science less well than any other
academic field. This warning should not be specific to science.

Unless we want to create a general list of reputable publications,
the "which science journals" section doesn't actually provide useful
guidance.

arXiv needs to be used with extreme caution, but an article on, say,
the Poincare conjecture can't really be written without it at present.

The statistics section encourages exactly the sort of judgment that
the page forbids on other topics such as blogs and Usenet.

====Popular culture and fiction====

As said before, nonsense - popular culture articles on contemporary
culture cannot be written without reference to blogs, Usenet,
bulletin boards, etc. This is a fundamental shift in what a source
is, and we need to respond to it.

====References====

No reputable style manuals or research guidelines are cited - only
Jimbo's statements.

====External links====

Again, a subject-specific guideline is being passed off as a general
guideline. These pages on primary/secondary sources are good for
history - not for the general case.

That's all I've got. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 17:29, 10
October 2006 (UTC)

Best,
Phil Sandifer
sandifer at english.ufl.edu

You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a
boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.

 >

On Oct 10, 2006, at 6:48 AM, David Gerard wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Top-to-
> bottom_rewrite_proposed
>
> WP:RS is an essay, not a guideline. I can say that because the
> incumbents are now blindly edit-warring to their preferred version,
> even against corrections of grammatical errors. That's the sign of a
> process that has become way too introverted and really, really needs
> to be brought back in touch with the real world.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] wtf.

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility#The_use_of_sarcasm

It may be bad practice, but making a rule is nonsensical. Unless
smarminess and passive aggression are to be made blockable offences.

- d.


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] in search of (partial) Images dump

body:
Clarence Risher wrote:
> I am specifically trying to fetch
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/scans/EB1911_tiff/*/*
> without wasting the resources to spider wikisource (where the images in
> question are linked) to find all the filenames.
>
> I made my original inquiries on IRC and was told that
> http://dumps.wikimedia.org/images/special/commons/20051126_upload.tar
> may contain the files that I want, but I would rather not waste the time
> downloading all 290GB just to find out.  I was told that wikitech was
> the right place to ask about such things, so here I am.
>
> Any pointers would be appreciated.

I made a tar file for you:

http://dumps.wikimedia.org/images/special/commons/EB1911.tar

-- Tim Starling


subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:RS rewrite proposed

body:
On 10/10/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/10/06, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Wow, David, I've just seen your personal attacks on me on the RS talk page.
> > I wish you'd stop assuming that you and only you understand how to
> > write and do research.
>
>
> I still have the emails you sent when you started the page, and the
> second set you sent as if you hadn't read anything I'd said in the
> first.
>
I don't know what e-mails you're talking about. I didn't start that
page. It was started as what looked like some kind of POV fork to V.
All I've ever done is try to copy edit it to get rid of the worst
writing and make sure it doesn't contradict the content policies. When
I found it, it included gems such as "A fact is a piece of true
information about the universe" and "The human brain is best at
remembering the gist of what it has been told, but usually does not
record the exact words ... It is a phenomenon demonstrated by the
children's game of Telephone."

But if you compare the earliest versions and the current one, you'll
see that the format and tone are essentially the same. That's because
there are lots of editors on that page and I didn't feel I could in
with a sledgehammer and rewrite it completely. So what you see on that
page is *not* in any way, shape, or form a version that I want
attributed to me.

My preference would be to get rid of it entirely.

Sarah


from_name: Jeff Raymond

subject: [WikiEN-l] Spam, Office et al

references:
<egg5ki$hue$1@sea.gmane.org> <452BA29B.3020808@gmail.com>
	<46776.127.0.0.1.1160490376.squirrel@www.internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<4418c60e0610101137o2448b3afp3d3d4b1b81a0a72d@mail.gmail.com>

body:
Zoney wrote:

> Surely this is just another symptom of the fact that the "majority view"
> or
> consensus of the community can sometimes be wrong? Nevermind the fact that
> it is only a handful of editors (relative to the whole editing community)
> who are party to any given issue. OK - perhaps you disagree in this
> instance
> - but can you really not imagine a similar situation where one or two
> people
> are in the right, and most people involved are flat out wrong?

There's certainly many times that the majority is flat-out wrong.  I'm not
convinced that this Fleshlight situation is one of them, though.
Especailly in tenacious situations like this, "when in doubt, don't
delete" should be the guiding principle.

>
> I am firmly of the belief that there are fundemental flaws with
> Wikipedia's
> modus operandi. The whole "consensus approach" to things like AFD are
> entirely capable of producing undesirable results. They'll continue to do
> so
> too. We will continue to have rubbish of all varieties kept, and
> ill-written, obscure, disliked, inaccurate (not necessarily incorrect) and
> unfortunate content deleted. And that's just the stuff that reaches AFD!

Funny, you and I have the same complaint, except that I think we're
deleting too much otherwise useful stuff.

>
> Sorry for being harsh - but I'd really like to see some attempt to deal
> with
> these fundamental problems that Wikipedia has!

I don't think keeping a notable sexual product is a "fundamental problem."
 There are a lot of bigger issues to tackle, including what constitutes a
reliable source, moving away from notability as a blanket criteria, and
dealing with more objective benchmarks.  If you want to go after unnotable
sexual products, there's probably a lot out there of lesser importance.

-Jeff

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


from_name: Mark Clements

body:
"Platonides" <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote in
message news:egfrut$7fc$1 at sea.gmane.org...
> "Steve Bennett" wrote:
> > I'd love to go over some of these excessively wordy messages and trim
> > them. Especially all the ones that go, "You can do X at the [[whatever
> > page]]". Instead of just "Click [[whatever page|here]] to do X".
> >
> > (if I were an admin) :)
> >
> > Steve
>
> Click here links are discouraged. Would be better to use "You can
[[whatever
> page|do X]]" though it doesn't seem terrible. If the message were "Click
> [[Special:preferences|here]] you change the images size" the user would
> arrive to his user profile, not related to images (have i changed it?).
The
> former at least implies that some browsing (go to 'files' tab) is needed.

There are also concerns with e.g. "Click [[Special:Preferences|here]] to
change your settings, click [[Special:Upload|here]] to upload a file.".

People accessing the site using a screen reader would find their link list
(the main source of navigation) simply has a bunch of links that all say
'here'.  For proper accessibility, all links should contain sufficient
description about their destination within the text of the link.

- Mark Clements (HappyDog)


subject: [Foundation-l] What to do with wikimedia.com/.org

body:
On 10/10/06, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:

> 1) a link to the Foundation website
> 2) links to the chapter websites (slightly smaller)
> 3) links to the projects (slightly smaller still).

All three of these. We should be able to do this mostly with pictures.
I'd suggest the projects, the Foundation then the chapters.

We shouldn't need a design contest unless trying stuff and straw polls
fails us. But that worked okay for www.wikipedia.org.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] de-vanity rewrite needed

body:
On 10/10/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/10/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

> > This used to be called [[Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines]]. Are there any
> > good writers at a loose end and feeling strong enough to go through
> > this de-vanitising it?

> Just to be clear, are you saying that the page needs to be rewritten
> to avoid the word "vanity"? Seems like a good idea, it is a fairly
> insulting term.

To avoid it except mentioning that libelling people by implication is
probably a bad idea.

Remember: that NYT article was just an amused look into the wacky
world of Wikipedia. We're very mainstream now. (How on earth did that
happen?!)

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] wtf.

body:
On 10/10/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:

> I asked more or less this question on the talk page just now,
> and the original proposer claims that it "is not a 'ban' on
> sarcasm per se", but rather "an explanation that sarcasm is a
> form of rudeness, as some people seem not to be aware of it".
> He proposes to include it in "the list of 'minor offenses',
> alongside other similar forms of incivility."

I note that he's reverted to his new version a few times against
multiple dissent. Apparently sarcasm is much worse for the editing
environment than actual bad editing practices.

In fairness to him, I must note that we already have a [[m:Don't be
dense|<s>rule</s> guideline]] against stupidity, which has in fact
abolished all stupidity on Wikipedia and therefore removed any
possible motivation editors may have to resort to sarcasm, even in
extremis.

- d.


from_name: Heimermann, Asher

body:
Hi,

  I can't find a PDF of Previous fundraisers in 2005 nor 2006.

  Can you please help me by telling me where I can find a PDF or a printable view of the previous fundraisers in 2005.

  Thanks for your time today!

---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.  Great rates starting at 1?/min.


from_name: Oldak Quill

subject: [WikiEN-l] wtf.

body:
Isn't the measure of the over-beaurocraticisation (forgive me this) of an
organisation its loss of a sense of humour? See, eg. the British government.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Spam, Office et al

body:
On 10/10/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I would like to suggest that office actions - normally under Brad
> responsability - be actually done by Brad himself or by a future new
> employee, who should NOT be a wikipedian.
>
> ant

If we are talking about the ideal person you missed "must be able to
speak English, German, French, Japanese, dutch, Italian, Portuguese,
Swedish and spanish".

--
geni


body:
On 10/10/06, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> 1) a link to the Foundation website
> 2) links to the chapter websites (slightly smaller)
> 3) links to the projects (slightly smaller still).
>

There should be a donation link there somewhere.

> The site itself should avoid language, but I'm sure we can make it
> spiffier than the current one.
>
> Is this general pattern acceptable? If so, I suggest we launch and
> advertise a design contest.

No. Tried that before it doesn't work. It sort of works for single
images but for entire layouts you are probably looking for ways to get
people to colaberate.

--
geni


from_name: Virgil Ierubino

subject: [Foundation-l] "Search in Category" function for MediaWiki

body:
I would really like to see a function like this developed into MediaWiki,
either an an extension or into a new version. Put simply, one should be able
to perform searches, limiting the field of search to articles in a given
category. The reasons why this would be useful are probably obvious. If not
- the simplest one is just that categories split articles into topics - and
this would allow a user to search in a given topic.

I see two ways of enacting this, and I think both should be looked into.
Firstly, an "advanced search" option, which I think is not as favourable.
Secondly, and this is what I think would really be good, a search box
automatically appears on a category page.

Alternatively, when one is viewing a category page, the normal search box
(on the left) acquires a check box - "search in this category".

Additionally, a further checkbox could be interesting: "also search
subcategories".

I can't imagine this would be too difficult to implement, but would
certainly be very useful and would make more use of the categorisation
system in MediaWiki.


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] "Search in Category" function for MediaWiki


from_name: Delirium

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

>Significant donors probably have other things to to with their time than
>edit; they have a life.  Nevertheless they believe in Wikipedia, and
>would like to help in the only way that they can by making donations.
>
I don't disagree that we should welcome donations from uninvolved people
who want to financially support us, and provide financial transparency
to convince them their money is being well-used, but I hope you're not
suggesting that only people who have nothing better to do with their
time and no life edit Wikipedia.  There are plenty of professionals and
academics here who really could (maybe even *should*) be doing other
things, but for various reasons choose to spend some time editing.

-Mark


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [WikiEN-l] Reliable sources: problems with [[WP:RS]]

body:
On 10/10/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:

> Sometimes I think it would be good to move all pop culture stuff to a
> sister project where rampant fandom and scatalogical humour will
> present less of a problem.

 en.culturepedia.org ?

Oops.  Someone grabbed that.

Maybe wikiculture.org

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: James Hare

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikinews language coordinator needed

body:
No, the logo has to be "Image:Wiki.png" therefore it can only be on the wiki
itself.

On 10/10/06, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > For bonus points: A new language edition initially needs to have
> > uploads enabled until it uploads its own logo, then uploads need to be
> > disabled until a fair use policy is established that clarifies under
> > which circumstances users are allowed to upload files.
> </snip>
>
> Hmmm, isn't it easier to put it in such a way that the logo is
> uploaded to commons, and that that one is used? I thought I saw that
> construction on some wiki's before.
>
> Lodewijk
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
Thanks to Arne Klempert, at long last, we now own the wikimedia.com
domain name in addition to wikimedia.org. To me this is a good time to
revisit the question what to do with the www.wikimedia.com/.org
website.

Right now it's a minimal portal with logo links to the projects
(currently missing Wikiversity). One point that has been made is that
"Wikimedia" can refer to any of the chapters or the Foundation, while
"Wikimedia Foundation" is specific to the Foundation.

So I think it makes sense to keep wikimediafoundation.org the way it
is, also for reasons of Wikimedia/Wikipedia confusion. But we could
turn wikimedia.org into a portal which shows

1) a link to the Foundation website
2) links to the chapter websites (slightly smaller)
3) links to the projects (slightly smaller still).

The site itself should avoid language, but I'm sure we can make it
spiffier than the current one.

Is this general pattern acceptable? If so, I suggest we launch and
advertise a design contest.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] wtf.

body:
On 10/10/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility#The_use_of_sarcasm
>
> It may be bad practice, but making a rule is nonsensical. Unless
> smarminess and passive aggression are to be made blockable offences.

My god, this sounds like an Onion article:

"Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia bans sarcasm"
>From the article:
"... In a comment wikipedia user Jonathan Swift claims that satire
should  be next..."

Look, if a wikipedia user is uncivil, he's uncivil. We are all
relatively intelligent people, we know when a person is uncivil,
whether he uses hyperbole, sarcasm, satire, iambic pentameter, or
whatever. A blanket ban on sarcasm seems outrageously misguided.

I mean, show me an example of a user that's mean in a sarcastic way.
Doesn't that ALREADY fall under WP:CIVIL? Talk about instruction
creep.

--Oskar


subject: [WikiEN-l] Spam, Office et al

body:
A lot of the bad atmosphere with regards to the Fleshlight is due to a
confusion between whether Danny is acting independantly or acting as
WP:Office.

It is confusing for wikipedians naturally.
It is confusing for Danny as well, who is pressured by the phone calls
and otrs messages. Who is either left alone making a decision, and later
is blamed by Jimbo, Brad or whoever. Or who acts under Jimbo or Brad
supervision, but is the one to receive the blame from the community
later on.

Problem is that Danny has very strong convictions himself (so may not be
the best to handle such requests) and is - as expected from most
wikipedians - sensitive to the community feedback afterwards.

I would like to suggest that office actions - normally under Brad
responsability - be actually done by Brad himself or by a future new
employee, who should NOT be a wikipedian.

ant


subject: [WikiEN-l] wtf.

body:
On 10/10/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/10/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Isn't the measure of the over-beaurocraticisation (forgive me this) of
> an
> > organisation its loss of a sense of humour? See, eg. the British
> government.
>
>
> People say this sort of thing, but the people themselves seem to be
> otherwise. e.g. There's a stereotype of accountants as grey and dull,
> but all the accountants I know are goddamn weirdo *freaks*.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

I was speaking on the level of the organisation, not the individuals who
make it up - over-PC, fear of anything which might offend, quick to
prosecute, &c.

I find it's the lion tamers that tend to be grey and dull.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


body:
Touch?.

On 10/10/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/10/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > No, the logo has to be "Image:Wiki.png" therefore it can only be on the
> wiki
> > itself.
>
> Actually, no.  See http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:%24wgLogo
>
> --
> Sam
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Inclusion of unmaintainable articles

body:
Andrew Gray wrote:

> Is this sort of thing a net gain or a net loss for the encyclopedia?
> Thoughts appreciated.

The problem with deletion is the difficulty of keeping them when they're
restarted, due to recreation worries and folks quick on the trigger.
Truly, the best case scenario (and one I may start doing myself in the
meantime) is to make it a point, when finishing discussions on such
articles, to stub them to something readable and manageable.  That way,
the information is there to be expanded upon, and it doesn't look like a
mess.

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


from_name: effe iets anders

body:
<snip>
> For bonus points: A new language edition initially needs to have
> uploads enabled until it uploads its own logo, then uploads need to be
> disabled until a fair use policy is established that clarifies under
> which circumstances users are allowed to upload files.
</snip>

Hmmm, isn't it easier to put it in such a way that the logo is
uploaded to commons, and that that one is used? I thought I saw that
construction on some wiki's before.

Lodewijk


subject: [WikiEN-l] de-vanity rewrite needed

body:
On 10/10/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest
>
> This used to be called [[Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines]]. Are there any
> good writers at a loose end and feeling strong enough to go through
> this de-vanitising it?

Just to be clear, are you saying that the page needs to be rewritten
to avoid the word "vanity"? Seems like a good idea, it is a fairly
insulting term.

--Oskar


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

body:
On 10/10/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:

> Wikipedia would not work if its admins were not bold.

That's definitely something I agree with, but as I've said in various
threads, there needs to be a common agreement as to the limit of when
something is sufficiently controversial as to require an abandonment of
being bold on that topic to allow consensus to work itself out.

Uncontroversial things should just happen.  Controversial ones need time to
get hashed out, or the ensuing debate starts out on harsh terms pretty much
automatically.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] wtf.

body:
On 10/10/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You should see how
> it is over here, it's all touchy-feely crap and bad architecture.

I don't suppose you've ever seen that Gothic revival monstrosity in the
middle of London? ;)

[I cite this thread as an example of how humour can be beneficial to
process.]

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Nick Jenkins

body:
> > Only the upload interface? o.O
>
> I invited Celeste to the hacking days to brief us on the general
> findings of the OpenUsability.org evaluation of the German Wikipedia:
>
> http://openusability.org/download.php/89/germanwikipedia_usabilitytest_edit.pdf

Interesting MediaWiki / Wikipedia usability study.

I've had a brief look at some of the suggestions that seem easiest to me to do something about:

Page 13, the "[Edit]" links are too far up from the horizontal line that marks a new section (thus leading new users to think they are for the section above, not the section below).

Tried adding:
----------------
div.editsection { vertical-align: bottom; }
----------------
to main.css ; that made no difference (in Firefox). Any CSS guru want to indicate whether it's possible to do this (move the "[Edit]" text down closer to the horizontal new section line), and if so maybe how ?

Page 22, fix bug with   has this already been this fixed? Couldn't see the function for adding   on my toolbar, but may have missed it.

Page 26, single-sign-on should help with the confusion about commons and :en or :de requiring different logins.

Page 26: To have the 'Upload' in the Wikipedia toolbar go to commons, this just needs to be added to LocalSettings.php for the relevant Wikipedia :
$wgUploadNavigationUrl = 'http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload';

(However, it may make most sense perhaps to enable this after Single-Sign-On becomes active).

Page 39: The categories should show above the textarea in a preview, not after it at the bottom of the page.

This seems to happen because the Skins are structured to show the body text (which includes both the preview and the textarea), and then the categories. For example from skins/MonoBook.php :
-----------------

<?php $this->html('bodytext') ?>
<?php if($this->data['catlinks']) { ?>
<?php       $this->html('catlinks') ?>
<?php } ?>

-----------------

Probably what's needed is to separate bodytext into the stuff before catlinks (the preview of the wikitext), and the stuff after it (the textarea). Or alternatively to insert catlinks into bodytext at some previous stage.

includes/EditPage.php::showEditForm() seems to be where the preview (generated by calling $this->showPreview() ) gets mixed in with the edit form content (e.g. the textarea and form tags seem to be started and ended here).

All the best,
Nick.


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

body:
Slow down a bit. Let's start with the basics. For various technical  reasons,
a fundraiser should not start at the beginning of the month.

Befpre deciding that the fopcus shoudl not be servers, decide what the real
needs are. If servers happen to be the primary cost, then that should be the
focus.

I am wary of turning this into an OLPC/Wikimedia fundraiser, even if just  by
tying the two organizations together. It may also run counter to our 501 c 3
status, but of this I am not sure.

Will the money go to chapters or to the Foundation? Can the chapters
transfer money to the foundation if needed?

How will funds donated be processed? Who will process them? How will we
recognize donors, both by what is required by law and by what is simply a nice
way to recognize them? This is an enormous amount of work.

Just some thoughts.

Danny

In a message dated 10/10/2006 3:27:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
erik at wikimedia.org writes:

On  10/9/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> As an individual  (not board member), I would like to ask if it were
> possible that the  spin around the fundraising, focuses a bit on the
> other projects,  perhaps the notion of virtual library, with the
> wikicommons and  wikisource. We have the recent report of the german
> digitization to  show up as an example as how we could push things
> forward in realm of  digital libraries.

Yes, it seems absolutely essential to me that the  communication
strategy is carefully planned _before_ we ask for  money.

What have the Foundation and the Chapters accomplished so far?  What is
the status of our work to bring Wikimedia to developing  countries?
What have our expenses been? (Get audited financial reports  out.) What
expenses do we foresee? What strategic projects are around the  corner?
What is the state of the projects besides Wikipedia, the  small
languages?

The last thing I want is another "WE NEED MORE  SERVERS" fundraiser.

So, in order to do this properly:

Brad -  can we assume that the financial statements will be published
before Nov 1?  Can you work on outlining some expenses over the next 6
months you see as  critical, in broad terms (staff, hardware, etc.)?

Tim - when are the  static dumps going to be ready?

Samuel - can you pass on some  promotional materials re: the OLPC
partnership to the Fundraising  Committee?

Delphine - can you compile a report on chapter activity (max  10K,
pictures would be nice)? What projects were completed, what  chapters
were set up?

Jimmy, Florence - shall we prepare a detailed  vision statement on
Board Wiki? I volunteer to take a first stab at the  structure.

Sabine - could you write a little report regarding  translation
projects, and future activities you can envision in this  area?

I would suggest early November as a launch of the fundraising  drive. I
would like to see some new functionality implemented for  this
fundraising drive as well, e.g. the ability to donate directly  from
any Wikimedia project page, as well as a more prominent display  of
donor comments above a certain amount.

Most importantly, however,  I want us to start working very soon on a
decent appeal for support and  report of activity so far. I understand
that donor attention is limited, so  we need to have a very short
general appeal, but those who care should be  able to find detailed
information about what we are doing and why we need  support.

Ideally, the information we compile here should be useful to  approach
organizations and wealthy individuals, beyond just a general  appeal to
the masses.

Does that sound reasonable? :-)
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of  Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions  expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an  official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of  Trustees.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l  mailing  list
foundation-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


from_name: Stefan Kühn

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Coordinates in Wikipedia

body:
Hello,

I produce the KML-Files for Google Earth and the CSV-Files with all
coordinates from DE and EN.

http://www.webkuehn.de/hobbys/wikipedia/geokoordinaten/index.htm

See also dynamic file from Tim:
http://www.alder-digital.de/wiki/index.php/Wikipedia_in_GoogleEarth_%28en%29

At the moment I write a new script. It will read also coordinates from
other languages. If we use all the other languages with the regional
knowledge for the data mining, we get a better result.

In the English and German Wikipedia we have a category with all
coordinates templates. Also CS, FI, KO and FR has this category.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Coordinates_templates

What is with other languages?
Did some other language use coordinates templates?

Thanks for information,
Stefan Kuehn


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] de-vanity rewrite needed

body:
"David Gerard" wrote

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest
>
> This used to be called [[Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines]]. Are there any
> good writers at a loose end and feeling strong enough to go through
> this de-vanitising it?

I have given this a thorough edit.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] wtf.

body:
On 10/10/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:

> Isn't the measure of the over-beaurocraticisation (forgive me this) of an
> organisation its loss of a sense of humour? See, eg. the British government.

People say this sort of thing, but the people themselves seem to be
otherwise. e.g. There's a stereotype of accountants as grey and dull,
but all the accountants I know are goddamn weirdo *freaks*.

- d.


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

body:
On 10/10/06, David Alexander Russell <david at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
> There has to be something wrong.

Yes, It would appear that some users of the website are becoming
hysterical over minor issues and the rest of us are not being
aggressive enough with our ignore lists. :-/

> It's not as if the complaints hotline
> has suddenly appeared

Nor has anything suddenly changed.

> complaints have been getting handled
> successfully for months without so much as a talkpage complaint.

What are you talking about?

[snip]
> Danny thinking he can do what he wants and to hell with everyone else,
> I'm sorry but OTRS doesn't win.

To hell with everyone else?
Oh please!

> Cynical

I'd like to invite you to try compassion, trust, and patience for a
change. I think you will find them more satisfying than cynicism.


body:
On 10/10/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/10/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If we have +/- 250 servers running now
> > *and we double in traffic every four months
> > *and the costs per server (for round number purposes, including racks,
> > power, etc.) are $4000
> > *we are talking about *starting* with a $1M computer order being
> > fulfilled before March 1.
> > If we add to that the next 500 computers, at the same rate, we are
> > talking about a batch of $2M beyond that.  /me's head spins.
>
>
> Heh. What's the upfront and service contract on an IBM minicomputer -
> make that two clustered in different cities - running as many copies
> of Linux/390 as we need?
>
> (I wonder if IBM would sponsor that, just to say they had.)

This is probably not the right mailing list for that discussion, but my
impression is that the 390 systems are great for running huge quantities of
virtual servers with moderate load, but not cost effective for huge amounts
of CPU run flat out.

I've been wandering around mailing list archives, the
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers and
https://wikitech.leuksman.com/view/Main_Page webpages, and ... I still can't
figure out an entry point or enough status info on what's going on, for
helping out with the server admin and architecture stuff.  I've been told
the wikitech-l but nothing's there either.

This is a particularly bad area for the Foundation to have be opaque.

My day job is a consultant in systems architecture and project management
for UNIX and Linux.  I've designed and built and operated similarly sized
sites before.  I would like to help with this area, from systems
architecture through operational management and documentation (and hands on
admin if need be).  Where do I start?

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

body:
George Herbert wrote:
> On 10/9/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Company A makes an obscure sex toy. There appear to be three people in
>> the world who care about it, and they're all trying to use us for
>> advertising.
>
> Please stop this.  The Fleshlight is significantly more notable than
> this.  Using insulting arguments like this is rude.
>
>

No, a rude insulting argument would be "anyone who gives a flying rat's
arse about this thing is a sick perv and should be banned". See the
difference?

PS. I count "being mentioned on the Something Awful forums" towards
notability the same way as "being mentioned on Slashdot".

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061010/49e6a4d3/attachment.pgp


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.8.0 released

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

October 10, 2006

This is the quarterly release snapshot for Fall 2006. While the code
has been running on Wikipedia for some time, installation and upgrade
bits may be less well tested. Bug fix releases may follow in the coming
days or weeks.

MediaWiki is now using a "continuous integration" development model with
quarterly snapshot releases. The latest development code is always kept
"ready to run", and in fact runs our own sites on Wikipedia.

Release branches will continue to receive security updates for about a year
from first release, but nonessential bugfixes and feature development happen
will be made on the development trunk and appear in the next quarterly release.

Those wishing to use the latest code instead of a branch release can obtain
it from source control: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Download_from_SVN

== Configuration changes ==

* $wgUseETag, to enable/disable sending of HTTP ETag headers
  (default: disabled)
* $wgLegalTitleChars now includes '+' by default for better compatibility
  with importing data dumps from Wikipedia
* $wgDefaultUserOptions now includes all default option settings instead
  of only overrides.

== Major new features ==

* (bug 7098) Add an option to disable/enable sending of HTTP ETag headers,
  as it seems to result in broken behaviour in combination with Squid 2.6
  (disabled by default).
* (bug 550) Allow blocks on anonymous users only.
* (bug 6420) Render thumbnails for DJVU images, support multipage DJVU display
  on image pages. Added new 'page=' thumbnail option to select a page from a
  multipage djvu for thumbnail generation.
* Full Postgres support is now enabled. It requires version 8.1 or better, and
  needs to have both plpgsql and tsearch2 already installed.
* (bug 6386) fix grammatical errors in danish naming of talk namespaces.

Full release notes:
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/tags/REL1_8_0/phase3/RELEASE-NOTES
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/tags/REL1_8_0/phase3/HISTORY

Download:
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/wikipedia/mediawiki-1.8.0.tar.gz

MD5 checksum:
9141eba6b8faf17fe80edeb7699cfca4  mediawiki-1.8.0.tar.gz

SHA-1 checksum:
28084a2a1c307e558fa5e99975d3a3dbee2e9586 mediawiki-1.8.0.tar.gz

Before asking for help, try the FAQ:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:FAQ

Low-traffic release announcements mailing list:
(Please subscribe to receive announcements of security updates.)
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce

Wiki admin help mailing list:
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l

Bug report system:
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/

Play "stump the developers" live on IRC:
#mediawiki on irc.freenode.net

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFLCV1wRnhpk1wk44RAoUcAJ9cGr304axlxgLLUWMwwfd4K8tR/ACgj12i
K8n5h25gWOLReeSsjdzBPlg=
=ceUE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] RFA has gone weird

body:
On 10/10/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/10/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/10/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 10/10/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
> > > <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > > > geni wrote
> >
> > > > > More arbcom members in future can be arranged.
> >
> > > > You can bring a horse to water, but can you make it drink?
> >
> > > Past experence suggests no after the first month.
> >
> >
> > Lots of people want to be on the arbcom, but the job *sucks*: dredging
> > through the worst stupidity on the wiki (one or both participants),
> > writing up something that would pass sanity check (wouldn't make
> > anyone looking at it cough up a hairball) and dealing with flak from
> > all sides. It's a job custom-made for burnout.
> >
> > And the people you see in AC elections who give you the first thought
> > "OH GOD NO" and make you vote for *anyone* else.
> >
> > And we're about to become a top 10 website. w00t!
> >
> > Committees don't scale too well in general on the wiki.
> >
> > Hey, AC. How's it been going this year?
>
> Stressful and time-consuming; that's one of the reasons almost half
> the members are currently inactive.
>
> Jay.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Can you remind us how active/inactive membership is counted, and what the
effects on a voting plurality are depending on how many people are actually
responsive out of the total?

How bad is it for moving forwards if arbcom members are functionally
inactive?  Is it then just an issue of bandwidth, or do you have to spur
some of the inactive ones to participate to get proposed decisions voted out
and official?

Thanks.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: Jossi Fresco

body:
On Oct 9, 2006, at 4:06 PM, Matt Brown wrote:

> I disagree.  Lots of editors disagree.  Because, if you look closely,
> the reliability of a source has more to do with who is writing it and
> their reputation, how well they are trusted, and the nature of the
> subject matter, than defining something simply by what medium it
> appeared in.

Sure...

Just tell me *how* can you verify *who* is the author of a USENET post.

-- Jossi


from_name: Simetrical

references:
<452AE1BE.20901@solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu>
	<NABBJGECPILFNLFEAPIKCEDBJAAA.nickpj@gmail.com>
	<7c2a12e20610092336n6578989awb1e02082b2d4552e@mail.gmail.com>
	<fbad4e140610100023w28fd2a0ata405696ca35b6ff3@mail.gmail.com>
	<f1c3529e0610100034y1a149c8ai8217c559e5f55143@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On 10/10/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd love to go over some of these excessively wordy messages and trim
> them. Especially all the ones that go, "You can do X at the [[whatever
> page]]". Instead of just "Click [[whatever page|here]] to do X".

http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#link-text , but the general
idea is good.  Platonides' [[whatever|do X]] is better, with maximally
descriptive link text.

On 10/10/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> When the messages are translated, they are translated as literally as
> possible in order not to misrepresent what is intended. The messages are
> typically created during the development stage. Saying that overly
> verbose messages are outside of what developers do is not necessary
> helpful. It is the English interface that is leading in this way and I
> am sure that the English community is less active in messages than any
> of the other language communities because they have not the same need to
> change things.

However, the details of local processes can only be added by admins,
and that's a large part of what's important for this kind of thing
(what doesn't belong on the wiki, what naming conventions are used,
etc.).  The generic messages in the default package will probably have
to be made significantly wordier by local admins if they want it to be
informative.  That's not a reason not to trim them down in some places
in the default package, of course.


body:
On Oct 9, 2006, at 4:10 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>>> Not really. If there are no reputable sources for a topic, then that
>>> topic may not be suitable for Wikipedia. For example, if the only
>>> source for a subject is a bunch of USENET postings or a couple of
>>> blogs, the subject may not pass the threshold of notability.
>>
>> [[Spoo]] is a featured article whose references are mostly Comuserve,
>> GEnie and Usenet forum postings. Those postings turned out to be
>> reputable sources for information on Spoo, after intense scrutiny by
>> large numbers of editors. There are even articles that are about
>> entities that are solely or primarily confined to Usenet itself;
>> [[Kibology]] for example. It'd be hard to have any sort of article
>> there
>> at all without basing it on Usenet postings in some way.
>
> Which is, I presume, why Jossi used the word "may".
>
> As usual the exception proves the rule; the vast majority of things
> verifiable solely from blogs are indeed uttery unsuitable.

If there are multiple sources and one of them is a USENET post or a
blog, we *may* include that posting as an additional source. But if
that is the *only* source upon which we make an assertion in an
article, in particular when the subject is controversial,  we should
deny the use of such source on the basis of lack of reliability.

For articles that there are not controversial, and that there is
consensus from involved and knowledgeable editors, exceptions could
be made, of course.

-- Jossi


body:
George Herbert wrote:
> I've been wandering around mailing list archives, the
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers and
> https://wikitech.leuksman.com/view/Main_Page webpages, and ... I still can't
> figure out an entry point or enough status info on what's going on, for
> helping out with the server admin and architecture stuff.  I've been told
> the wikitech-l but nothing's there either.
>
> This is a particularly bad area for the Foundation to have be opaque.
>
> My day job is a consultant in systems architecture and project management
> for UNIX and Linux.  I've designed and built and operated similarly sized
> sites before.  I would like to help with this area, from systems
> architecture through operational management and documentation (and hands on
> admin if need be).  Where do I start?

The wikitech.leuksman.com wiki is primarily for our own documentation of setup
and administrative actions, and is not used for discussion.

The operations team hangs out in #wikimedia-tech on irc.freenode.net.

Decision-making, such as our recent agreement on which Linux distribution to use
for new installations or picking which hardware to order, tend to be in a
private channel e-mail; such discussions in public tend to get waaaaaaay too
much noise. :P

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061010/21897c0b/attachment.pgp


body:
George Herbert wrote:
> I've been wandering around mailing list archives, the
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers and
> https://wikitech.leuksman.com/view/Main_Page webpages, and ... I still can't
> figure out an entry point or enough status info on what's going on, for
> helping out with the server admin and architecture stuff.  I've been told
> the wikitech-l but nothing's there either.
>
> This is a particularly bad area for the Foundation to have be opaque.
>
> My day job is a consultant in systems architecture and project management
> for UNIX and Linux.  I've designed and built and operated similarly sized
> sites before.  I would like to help with this area, from systems
> architecture through operational management and documentation (and hands on
> admin if need be).  Where do I start?

The wikitech.leuksman.com wiki is primarily for our own documentation of setup
and administrative actions, and is not used for discussion.

The operations team hangs out in #wikimedia-tech on irc.freenode.net.

Decision-making, such as our recent agreement on which Linux distribution to use
for new installations or picking which hardware to order, tend to be in a
private channel e-mail; such discussions in public tend to get waaaaaaay too
much noise. :P

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061010/21897c0b/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
George Herbert wrote:
> I've been wandering around mailing list archives, the
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers and
> https://wikitech.leuksman.com/view/Main_Page webpages, and ... I still can't
> figure out an entry point or enough status info on what's going on, for
> helping out with the server admin and architecture stuff.  I've been told
> the wikitech-l but nothing's there either.
>
> This is a particularly bad area for the Foundation to have be opaque.
>
> My day job is a consultant in systems architecture and project management
> for UNIX and Linux.  I've designed and built and operated similarly sized
> sites before.  I would like to help with this area, from systems
> architecture through operational management and documentation (and hands on
> admin if need be).  Where do I start?

The wikitech.leuksman.com wiki is primarily for our own documentation of setup
and administrative actions, and is not used for discussion.

The operations team hangs out in #wikimedia-tech on irc.freenode.net.

Decision-making, such as our recent agreement on which Linux distribution to use
for new installations or picking which hardware to order, tend to be in a
private channel e-mail; such discussions in public tend to get waaaaaaay too
much noise. :P

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061010/21897c0b/attachment.pgp>


body:
George Herbert wrote:
> I've been wandering around mailing list archives, the
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers and
> https://wikitech.leuksman.com/view/Main_Page webpages, and ... I still can't
> figure out an entry point or enough status info on what's going on, for
> helping out with the server admin and architecture stuff.  I've been told
> the wikitech-l but nothing's there either.
>
> This is a particularly bad area for the Foundation to have be opaque.
>
> My day job is a consultant in systems architecture and project management
> for UNIX and Linux.  I've designed and built and operated similarly sized
> sites before.  I would like to help with this area, from systems
> architecture through operational management and documentation (and hands on
> admin if need be).  Where do I start?

The wikitech.leuksman.com wiki is primarily for our own documentation of setup
and administrative actions, and is not used for discussion.

The operations team hangs out in #wikimedia-tech on irc.freenode.net.

Decision-making, such as our recent agreement on which Linux distribution to use
for new installations or picking which hardware to order, tend to be in a
private channel e-mail; such discussions in public tend to get waaaaaaay too
much noise. :P

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061010/21897c0b/attachment-0001.pgp>


body:
On Oct 10, 2006, at 1:58 AM, Bryan Derksen wrote:

> If [[Spoo]] can maintain featured article status while being based
> largely on things that WP:RS explicitly says "should not be used as
> primary or secondary sources", something is clearly broken
> somewhere. I
> consider the Spoo article to be of very good quality so I'm
> inclined to
> believe it's WP:RS that's the problem.

What may work for [[Spoo]]  may not work for [[New_anti-Semitism]].

The main issue here is if we are dealing with a controversial topic,
a biography of a living person, or an ongoing enterprise. In these
cases, the need for reliable sources is paramount. In the case of
Spoo,  if we do not have the article 100% verifiable to reliable
sources, nobody will be harmed, really.

-- Jossi


body:
On 10/10/06, Jossi Fresco <jossifresco at mac.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 9, 2006, at 4:06 PM, Matt Brown wrote:
>
> > I disagree.  Lots of editors disagree.  Because, if you look closely,
> > the reliability of a source has more to do with who is writing it and
> > their reputation, how well they are trusted, and the nature of the
> > subject matter, than defining something simply by what medium it
> > appeared in.
>
> Sure...
>
> Just tell me *how* can you verify *who* is the author of a USENET post.
>
> -- Jossi

As various major media plagarism and faked story sources show, you can't
assume the accuracy or authorship of a "reliable media" source either.

Though forging Usenet headers and From: addresses was not unknown (I'm
responsible for a lot of April 1 Usenet pranks), as a general rule, if a
well known Usenet user, from their normal account, and if they didn't show
up shortly later in-thread to claim it was a forgery, then you can generally
assume it was legit.

The specific details of a post can be subjected to further research if one
is in doubt.  Even the best forgeries were exceptionally difficult to make
completely transparent, after the early 90s once nntp server openness and
header tracking info started to tighten up.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: Aphaia

subject: [Foundation-l] Foundation-l summary for 1st week October

body:
On 10/10/06, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe the transcom could think about translations or try to contact
> people who might be interested? (Maybe even just a selection of the
> summary even)

The below is my personal opinion as a person who is charing Transcom,
please keep it in your mind.
I am afraid Transcom wouldn't nod; it is not only a volunteer group
from the Wikimedia community concerning translation in general, but an
official part of Foundation activity. it is concerning with official
information from the Foundation and sometimes its official need of
communication to people both external and internal. On basis of this
understanding, I don't think summary of foundation-l isn't within our
scope of responsibility; discussion on foundaition-l is not completely
equal to the official information from the Foundation except some
cases like official announce from the Foundation either the Board
member or its officials. Also I would like to point it out the summary
is created on individual basis of Pat Gunn and couldn't be thought as
the official statement of the Foundation. Transcom as a part of
Foundation bureaucracy may have no good reason to ensure an activity
which is independent from the Foundation in my understanding.

However it doesn't mean the goal of transcom and of this summery is in
discord. Each individual member of Transcom would like to support the
new summary project as well other individual volunteer on the
Wikimedia project, and Transcom has no good reason to hinder it. It
would be also good to use our communicative resources to ensure this
attempt. Already on translators-l we can find such individual supports
on genuine individual basis, request for translation of summary itself
and also of publishing announcement.

By the way, is it announced on Dutch Wikipedia VP and other discussion
places? ;)

Cheers,
--
Kizu Naoko
  Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
  * Nessuna poesia prima di noi *


from_name: Brad Patrick

body:
Erik, I have to agree with Danny we need to not get ahead of ourselves here.

But in round numbers, just as a *starting point* -

If we have +/- 250 servers running now
*and we double in traffic every four months
*and the costs per server (for round number purposes, including racks,
power, etc.) are $4000
*we are talking about *starting* with a $1M computer order being
fulfilled before March 1.

If we add to that the next 500 computers, at the same rate, we are
talking about a batch of $2M beyond that.  /me's head spins.

Let's say we disagree and growth levels out at the same rate we are at
now, it is still another several hundred thousand dollars to get ahead
of the curve.  For that assumption to hold, however, many, many things
would have to be wrong with our predictions about expanding smaller
wikis, etc.  And the rest of the stuff on your list would have been
for no effect in terms of growth.

Even purchasing rack after rack after rack, these technical operations
challenges are daunting, and cannot be ignored.  They *are* the most
important thing, whether you choose to put your head in the sand about
the facts or not.  If there is one thing I have come to appreciate
even more than I did at Hacking Days, it is that the technical
component will come back to bite us even harder if we neglect it like
we did this summer.  We must purchase capacity on at least a 3x per
year basis, with linear or geometric assumptions.

-Brad

On 10/10/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>
> Slow down a bit. Let's start with the basics. For various technical  reasons,
> a fundraiser should not start at the beginning of the month.
>
> Befpre deciding that the fopcus shoudl not be servers, decide what the real
> needs are. If servers happen to be the primary cost, then that should be the
> focus.
>
> I am wary of turning this into an OLPC/Wikimedia fundraiser, even if just  by
> tying the two organizations together. It may also run counter to our 501 c 3
> status, but of this I am not sure.
>
> Will the money go to chapters or to the Foundation? Can the chapters
> transfer money to the foundation if needed?
>
> How will funds donated be processed? Who will process them? How will we
> recognize donors, both by what is required by law and by what is simply a nice
> way to recognize them? This is an enormous amount of work.
>
> Just some thoughts.
>
> Danny
>
> In a message dated 10/10/2006 3:27:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> erik at wikimedia.org writes:
>
> On  10/9/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > As an individual  (not board member), I would like to ask if it were
> > possible that the  spin around the fundraising, focuses a bit on the
> > other projects,  perhaps the notion of virtual library, with the
> > wikicommons and  wikisource. We have the recent report of the german
> > digitization to  show up as an example as how we could push things
> > forward in realm of  digital libraries.
>
> Yes, it seems absolutely essential to me that the  communication
> strategy is carefully planned _before_ we ask for  money.
>
> What have the Foundation and the Chapters accomplished so far?  What is
> the status of our work to bring Wikimedia to developing  countries?
> What have our expenses been? (Get audited financial reports  out.) What
> expenses do we foresee? What strategic projects are around the  corner?
> What is the state of the projects besides Wikipedia, the  small
> languages?
>
> The last thing I want is another "WE NEED MORE  SERVERS" fundraiser.
>
> So, in order to do this properly:
>
> Brad -  can we assume that the financial statements will be published
> before Nov 1?  Can you work on outlining some expenses over the next 6
> months you see as  critical, in broad terms (staff, hardware, etc.)?
>
> Tim - when are the  static dumps going to be ready?
>
> Samuel - can you pass on some  promotional materials re: the OLPC
> partnership to the Fundraising  Committee?
>
> Delphine - can you compile a report on chapter activity (max  10K,
> pictures would be nice)? What projects were completed, what  chapters
> were set up?
>
> Jimmy, Florence - shall we prepare a detailed  vision statement on
> Board Wiki? I volunteer to take a first stab at the  structure.
>
> Sabine - could you write a little report regarding  translation
> projects, and future activities you can envision in this  area?
>
> I would suggest early November as a launch of the fundraising  drive. I
> would like to see some new functionality implemented for  this
> fundraising drive as well, e.g. the ability to donate directly  from
> any Wikimedia project page, as well as a more prominent display  of
> donor comments above a certain amount.
>
> Most importantly, however,  I want us to start working very soon on a
> decent appeal for support and  report of activity so far. I understand
> that donor attention is limited, so  we need to have a very short
> general appeal, but those who care should be  able to find detailed
> information about what we are doing and why we need  support.
>
> Ideally, the information we compile here should be useful to  approach
> organizations and wealthy individuals, beyond just a general  appeal to
> the masses.
>
> Does that sound reasonable? :-)
> --
> Peace & Love,
> Erik
>
> Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of  Trustees
>
> DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions  expressed
> in this message are solely my own and do not represent an  official
> position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of  Trustees.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l  mailing  list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Brad Patrick
General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
bradp.wmf at gmail.com
727-231-0101


body:
On Oct 10, 2006, at 4:22 PM, David Gerard wrote:

> I think we could all agree it varies with subject area. That's one of
> the problems with WP:RS - it attempts a one-size-fits-all solution
> that doesn't vary per subject area.

So, let's fix it.

-- Jossi