body:
geni wrote:

>>You don't "get consensus" in the way you "get a bunch of bananas from
>>the store."  You "get consensus" in the way you "get the joke."
>>
>>Consensus isn't something you obtain, demand, husband, or cite.  It's
>>something that happens.
>>
>>
>
>In fact it is something I cite and try to obtain. We work toward
>obtaining a cunsensus on article.
>
>
>
How can you cite something you don't have? You'd have to take a poll for
every edit under a citable system of consensus.  And Wikipedia would
still have only two pages.

>>Consensus follows action.  To believe otherwise is to obviate the prime
>>directive of Wikipedia, which is to '''be bold'''.
>>
>>
>
>The prime dirrective is to make an encyolpedia. in this case someone
>else was bold by revting the chage instantly.
>
>
Boldness is constructive.  Reverts of good info are not.  Continued
reverts in the face of continued analysis of the good info are
especially not.  Owning a page and attempting to appoint oneself a
steward of that page are egregiously not.

>>The cooperative counterparts in a community of bold people are those who
>>accept the boldness of those who are right, regardless of the prior
>>consensus.
>>
>>
>
>Should I be bold and block you under the "don't dissagree with geni"
>rule and wait to see if a consensus forms or not?
>
>
Boldness applies to the construction of the encyclopedia, not the
meta-activity that both secures and hinders that process.

Editors should be bold.  Admins ought to fear for their careers should
they make an error in judgment, as should all enforcers and adjudicators
of the law.

>>This concept of cooperation imbues every organization that relies on the
>>truth.  Ask Galileo sometime.  Or ask your 5th-grade science teacher why
>>you were taught about Galileo's legal problems. (Not that I think I'm
>>Galileo or these noobs are the Inquisition; but a boy's got to get out
>>the ''reductio ad absurdum'' sometimes to put a point across.)
>>
>>
>I fail to see the anology.
>
>
Galileo did not receive cooperation, though he told the truth.  He lost
his liberty not simply because it was true, but because he did not let
the Church vet it and own its dissemination.  Yet now the church accepts
everything he said.  The organization is the human race, its product is
its sum of knowledge, and the Church failed to honor the truth until it
was embarassed by its ego-driven insistence on bureaucracy.

Huh.  Turns out the analogy is even more apt than when I first suggested it.

--Blair


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Blair P. Houghton

subject:
I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton. Re:[WikiEN-l]Unreasonable
	block of user

body:
Jim Cecropia wrote:

>I really don't think this is helpful. I sense that Blair can be a useful contributor to Wikipedia. He is new and can be engaged. I've seen those more agreesive than he become valuabled members of the community. I would like him to calm down and work with the community, and also for the community to not go out of their way to bait him or any other honest user.
>
>
One of my favorite parts of the whole debacle was when GeorgeStepanek
claimed I was a newbie.  His account is dated December 10.  Mine is
dated January 1, but if I look around I can find edits I made over a
year ago without having created a login.

Quite the guffaw around my keyboard, I can assure you.

Oh, and check through my contribution list.  I'm well-engaged, almost
whoring myself for barnstars, and not a little peeved that the people
railroading me didn't see what they were doing to my reputation.

--Blair


list: foundation-l

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Foundation-l] Proposal for New Project Wikirec

body:
Marc Colbeck wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I'm new and checking out the list because I think that the Wikipedia is
> so cool.
>
> This seems obvious to me because I'm a paramedic, but has anyone thought
> of, or suggested, Wikimedicine?

Well, for a start there's an Emergency Medicine project on Wikibooks:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Emergency_Medicine

Obviously there are DISCLAIMERS EVERYWHERE. Personally I'm not sure I'd
want to be treated by someone who taught themselves how to be a
paramedic by wiki. ;)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20050316/9f18cad2/attachment.pgp


body:
Marc Colbeck wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I'm new and checking out the list because I think that the Wikipedia is
> so cool.
>
> This seems obvious to me because I'm a paramedic, but has anyone thought
> of, or suggested, Wikimedicine?

Well, for a start there's an Emergency Medicine project on Wikibooks:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Emergency_Medicine

Obviously there are DISCLAIMERS EVERYWHERE. Personally I'm not sure I'd
want to be treated by someone who taught themselves how to be a
paramedic by wiki. ;)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20050316/9f18cad2/attachment-0001.pgp


list: wikimedia-l

body:
Marc Colbeck wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I'm new and checking out the list because I think that the Wikipedia is
> so cool.
>
> This seems obvious to me because I'm a paramedic, but has anyone thought
> of, or suggested, Wikimedicine?

Well, for a start there's an Emergency Medicine project on Wikibooks:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Emergency_Medicine

Obviously there are DISCLAIMERS EVERYWHERE. Personally I'm not sure I'd
want to be treated by someone who taught themselves how to be a
paramedic by wiki. ;)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20050316/9f18cad2/attachment.pgp>


body:
Marc Colbeck wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I'm new and checking out the list because I think that the Wikipedia is
> so cool.
>
> This seems obvious to me because I'm a paramedic, but has anyone thought
> of, or suggested, Wikimedicine?

Well, for a start there's an Emergency Medicine project on Wikibooks:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Emergency_Medicine

Obviously there are DISCLAIMERS EVERYWHERE. Personally I'm not sure I'd
want to be treated by someone who taught themselves how to be a
paramedic by wiki. ;)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20050316/9f18cad2/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: Andrew Lih

subject:
I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton. Re: [WikiEN-l] Unreasonable
	block of user Blair P. Houghton by adminCryptoDerk

body:
Blair,

It was legit to unblock you but the biting comments don't help. So
keep the personal comments out of it. Play the ball, not the man/men.

I've also been bold and altered the 3RR page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#Intent_of_the_policy

Still not entirely happy with the edits, but I do think 3RR needs to
be closer to the "means of last resort" rather than the quick tool it
is now.

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:54:55 -0700, Blair P. Houghton
<blair at houghton.net> wrote:
> It was a trap.  GeorgeStepanek accepted almost all of my edits, but only after I was blocked.
>
> Clearly he wasn't disagreeing with everything I was saying, he was just reverting the page to goad me into re-reverting it.  I did, three times.  Then I changed the edit to include others' suggestions.  Then Taxman continued reverting in GeorgeStepanek's stead.  Then they created the false allegations of 3RR violation.
>
> And once the unblock actually allows me into the server, I'll repeat all of this on the talk page so everyone concerned can see the mess these guys made.
>
> --Blair
>
> Andrew Lih wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:09:30 -0400, Jim Cecropia <jcecropia at mail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton so that he can defend himself
> >>in the appropriate forums on Wikipedia.
> >>
> >>The 3RR, as I've stated elsewhere, is a loose cannon which tends to
> >>favor the status-quo. If the there is a content dispute, the better solution
> >>is to protect the article for a limited time to get the combatants to hash
> >>out the issue in article talk. In the instant case, I notice that
> >>GeorgeStepanek, for example, numbered his reverts ("first, second, third")
> >>which telegraphs consciousness of the 3RR as a trap, then another editor
> >>who disagrees with Houghton picked up on the reverting.
> >
> >
> > It's dangerous to ascribe intent. Simply numbering one's edits does
> > not mean it's a "trap." In fact, *not* numbering them, and losing
> > count, could be construed as a trap as well.
> >
> > But I agree that an outside admin would have served the community
> > better by simply locking the page, and not banning anyone. Somehow
> > this needs to be emphasized on the 3RR page - not all 3R violations
> > need to be followed up by a ban.
> >
> > -Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>


from_name: Kurt Jansson

subject: [Foundation-l] What is de.wikiversity.org?

body:
Erik Moeller schrieb:

> The most important question seems to me whether Wikiversity will just be
> a repository of learning materials, or a true online university that
> includes
> - a graduation process
> - original research
> - a publication and peer review process for scientific papers, theses, etc.

It'll be more than a repository. I think what most people agree on is that it
should be a platform for e-learning, where courses are developed by teachers and
students together (I'm not sure it makes sense to even draw this distinction
here) and where people can communicate and help each other with learning.

In the long run it might make sense to also integrate ideas from
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiresearch
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Scholarly_Journals
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiAbstracts
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiReviews
and other pages, but I think the community should decide about this in the
future. Most of these ideas are quite abigious, not enough discussed in the
community, and none of them is needed to start working on an e-learning plattform.

Kurt


body:
Brion Vibber schrieb:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>> 1) When and why was this wiki set up? Who made the decision?
>
> I set up the wiki on March 1 on Kurt Jansson's request.
>
> I'm sure Kurt won't mind if I reprint his request here:

np, thanks Brion.

>> 2) Why was the procedure for launching new projects as established with
>> Wikinews not followed?
>
> My understanding is that this was all discussed ages ago, and the
> project's just been waiting on the external funding (which hasn't quite
> happened yet).

Right. The final decision to start a Wikiversity must have been made sometime in
september last year, IIRC.

>> 3) What are the future plans for the wiki?
>>
>> If this is merely meant to be a demonstration prototype and not an
>> official project of the Wikimedia Foundation, I think that status should
>> be clearly indicated on the wiki.
>
> That's my understanding of the present situation; it's for demo /
> discussion / planning for now.

Right. My plan was to start without much media attention, but with the people
who showed they care about the project before. We have had enough rants about
how "revolutionary" and "world changing" a Wikiversity could be, now we need
some people who actually start developing e-learning courses and tests, and
create a list of problems they had, features that would be helpful, etc.

I think developing and testing a few scenarios what Wikiversity could be is more
productive that way, but I fear it's already on Slashdot and Heise now ;-)

Kurt


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia hits the big time

body:
> From: Fred Bauder
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 4:51 PM
>
> My position is that you are operating in bad faith at this
> point if you are not disclosing the name of the Foundation
> and the sort of things they have done.
>
> Depending on who it is and what we are likely to expect this
> could be very good or very bad. How about a clue before you
> get us all worked up?

IIFWP is an NGO in Special Consultative Status with
the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations

The put on conferences, like the following on "Universal Values and
Lasting Peace: Toward a New Model of Global Governance"

http://www.iifwp.org/programs/conferences/summit/5WS2005/index.php?repor
t_id=449&event_id=139

You can find some of their peace initiatives here:

http://www.iifwp.org/programs/peace/

And if I must spell it out, the foundation is part of the Unification
Movement, founded by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon (the well-known founder of
the Unification Church). What other foundation would be likely to
approach me to help them publish an encyclopedia? The only communities
I'm involved in are (a) the Unificationists (27 years) and (2) the
Wikipedians (3.5 years). Is that enough of a clue?

Ed Poor


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Alison Russell

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Automatic creation of Table of Contents after three or
	more headers on a page??

body:
Hi,

I want a table of contents to be displayed. My main page has more than seven
pieces of headline text, but my table of contents is not being created. A
past suggestion was to force it by using __FORCETOC__, or in a position
other than just before the first heading by using __TOC__. Unfortunately I
don't understand what this means because I am just an eager novice?!?

What piece of code should I be editing with these lines?

Thanks in advance,
Alison


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Five points we should be discussion about
	the	mediawiki projects

body:
Alex J. Avriette wrote:
>   My interest in this project -- mediawiki and wikiepdia -- started to take a
> more serious note when the "great power loss crash" occurred. As a systems admin
> who has been in charge of high availability systems, it shocked me how long it
> took to recover. It further shocked me that data had been lost, when I had spent
> the entire day adding what I felt was useful content.

What data was lost? As far as I know, nothing at all should have been
lost in that incident except perhaps from the last few seconds prior to
the crash. If you looked at the site while it was read-only during the
playback of logs or shortly thereafter before we cleared the parser
cache you might have seen old versions of pages, but that would have all
been restored by the end of the day.

>   I mention this because chaper and Jimbo and I have discussed the availability
> of the wikipedia, and also the fact that it has been run largely by developers.
> As somebody who has been both a developer and a systems administrator (clever
> readers will be able to find my resume online), I can tell you that this is
> frequently a very bad idea. That is not to say that developers should not have
> the keys to the kingdom, but frequently, a developer does not know that we need
> a bigger APC or that we might need APC PDU's, and so on and so forth.

Depends on what you mean by "developers". Many of the "developers" (such
as Kate and Jamesday) aren't actually the people touching the MediaWiki
code, but are system administrators and DBAs who spend most of their
time and effort on running the server farm, arranging the network,
ordering our new hardware, database admin, etc.

> * Power outage at the colo
>   Kate says we pay for this. This makes it very hard to tolerate failure of that
> magnitude.  Since then, we still don't have ariel back up as the master database
> server. The solution is multiple collocation centers.

Well, additional data centers is on its way. :)

>   Lastly, Oracle has a product called RAC, their Real Application Clusters. I
> think that (and no I haven't asked them), they may be willing to *give* us
> licenses in exchange for being able to use in marketing data "well the
> wikipedia,
> which receives x gazillion hits a day uses RAC" and a soundbyte from Jimbo...

Oracle is unlikely to happen, even if they pay us to use it. There's a
conscious political decision to use FOSS software.

>   And before I forget to mention it, Postgres is *more Free* than mysql. I
> understand that mediawiki has been coded with mysql in mind, but it might be
> possible to begin work on a database-agnostic version of the software that
> actually could plug into postgres and we could test things like
> cross-continental failover.

Experimental PostgreSQL support already exists, and will be improving as
time goes along.

>   Another system reliability subject is the lack of disaster-recovery
> documentation.
> Lack of sufficient network diagrams. Lack of documentation required for us (me)
> to start attacking this from a SYSTEMS point of view. I understand how we work
> squid, apache, mysql, the slaves, and mediawiki.  Cool. But tell me where the
> switches are. What models they are. Which nodes are connected to which switches.

Some of this is on wp.wikidev.net. If it's not, talk to Kate etc and
make sure it gets done.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050316/27415c61/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Trail of pages visited

body:
Hi again,

Has anyone ever implemented a trail of pages visited? I would like to do a
floating trail which opens in a new mini window and keeps track of last ten
visits a user makes?

Any ideas or examples anyone can refer me to?

Thanks,
Alison


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Re: Careless image deletion : a minor outrage

body:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:02:22 -0700, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> 1) Since this is a technical issue (isn't it?) shouldn't it have been
> put up for a vote on meta rather than en:?

Not really a technical issue. The most prominent of the "no" votes
cited legal issues. Anthere put it best:

"Many of the articles deleted are deleted for a very good reason. Some
because they are copyright violations or libel. These must stay non
visible for obvious legal reasons."

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)


from_name: Chad Perrin

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Careless image deletion : a minor outrage

references:
<742dfd06050315075513b4e021@mail.gmail.com>	<sh4qfcppvy.fsf@tux.gnu.franken.de>
	<42377F1F.8030904@apotheon.com> <shzmx3o5m9.fsf@tux.gnu.franken.de>

body:
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
> Chad Perrin <perrin at apotheon.com> writes:
>
>
>>I'm a little curious as to what you mean by "a wrong impression" here.
>
>
> It is distorted or blurred ("sehr verzerrt") - in reality it looks
> different.
>
> Don't get me wrong, the picture is very good and we should preserve it
> as an artefact, it is just that I want a "more" realistic on the
> W?rzburg main page.
>

Maybe it should just be given a label that says something like "not to
scale" and left in place until something better comes along, then.

--
Chad
[ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia hits the big time

body:
My position is that you are operating in bad faith at this point if you are
not disclosing the name of the Foundation and the sort of things they have
done.

Depending on who it is and what we are likely to expect this could be very
good or very bad. How about a clue before you get us all worked up?

Fred

> From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:04:56 -0500
> To: <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia hits the big time
>
> The latest issue of Software Development magazine is on-line now:
>
> http://www.sdmagazine.com/documents/sdm0504e/
>
> Their excellent article "The Wiki Way" gives significant attention to
> MediaWiki software and the Wikipedia. There's even a section on Wiki
> Woes (like vandals).
>
> And I found a professor of church history whose students cite Wikipedia
> in papers they write.
>
> I think we're finally beginning to be taken seriously. We have half a
> million articles, and we're approaching the level of respectability
> which Encyclopedia Britannica labored for centuries to achieve.
>
> The question is, where do we go from here? Larry Sanger left the project
> for a mix of reasons, but SOME of them made sense (at least to me). We
> never resolved the tension between:
>
> A) Anyone can edit any article, any time; and,
> B) People can count on every article to be accurate and fair.
>
> Not enough people were interested in Larry's "Sifter Project". I don't
> know if anyone is using Magnus Manke's "tagging" software. Do we need to
> fork?
>
> I was approached by the director of a foundation (with a multi-million
> dollar budget) to create a fork of Wikipedia leading to a print edition
> to be published no later than 2008. If I do this, maybe it will get me
> out of your hair? (The Cunctator wrote, "Rinse, wash, repeat.") But I
> worry whether a fork is the best approach, or even necessary at all.
>
> Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Anthere

body:
Most of the time (about 99,99% only), just talking, even if a bit
heated, is the wise route :-)

ant

Jim Cecropia a ?crit:
> I think we may have short-circuited the de-admin, RfC, ArbCom route. Sometimes a word to the wise (on both sides) is sufficient. I think everyone can now act in good faith. Hopefully, I will be proven right; stay tuned.
>
> --C
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com>
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Unreasonable block of user Blair P. Houghton byadminCryptoDerk
> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 07:38:27 +0100
>
>
>>I think that Jimbo might have sligthly more pressing matters than
>>investigating himself all disputes on the english wikipedia. He
>>certainly do cares and would regret a lot that abuse is practiced,
>>but any investigation takes a lot of time. This is why an arbcom
>>was set. So that an instance can be delegated power by Jimbo and by
>>the community to consider such things.
>>
>>So, for any such issue, you should first of all consider turning to
>>the arbcom, and trust the arbcom to take the right decision; and
>>see Jimbo as the final person you can go to when ALL OTHER means
>>have failed (to your opinion).
>>
>>Ant
>>
>>Blair P. Houghton a ?crit:
>>
>>>[[Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship]] says to ask here, or Jimbo.
>>>
>>>Which I guess means Jimbo is the only one who counts.
>>>
>>>And he doesn't seem to care that admins aren't paying attention
>>>to the voted-on criteria for blocking users, as it's not sufficient
>>>cause to block an admin.
>>>
>>>--Blair
>>>
>>>Jack Lutz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>What is the usual procedure for having admin privileges stripped in cases
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>of abuse?
>>>>
>>>>Apparently one must make an appeal to ArbCom or Jimbo, though note that only
>>>>a few (2?) sysops have lost privileges on EN. See also the proposed
>>>>[[Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship]].
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>WikiEN-l mailing list
>>>>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>WikiEN-l mailing list
>>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] I've added a note to the 3RR policy page

body:
Brian M wrote:

> I think your wording is a good addition, except for one point.
> As I have argued a few times on WP:AN, I think administrators should
> avoid second-guessing each other.   Therefore, I don't think people
> should be advised to go to a different administrator to unblock them
> than the one who imposed the block in the first place.   This just
> encourages people who have been blocked to  "forum shop" for the
> softest/friendliest admin they can find, playing administrators
> against each other.   It is clear that there is antipathy between some
> administrators, and people shouldn't be able to exploit this.

Yeah, rules lawyering and admin-shopping from the creatively antisocial
is likely to happen.

That said, they'd do it whether it was said there or not anyway, and
admins can't be expected to be on 24-hour call by email. And the wording in
that section should be simple and clear to those of good will, not a
legalistic horror festooned with "AND NO DON'T TRY THAT GETOUT EITHER" in
an attempt to head off those of less good will.

If we can come up with a really concise wording ...

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia hits the big time

body:
Sorry for misleading you, Fred. I got IIFWP confused with IRFWP. (It's
simple mistake, one you have probably made yourself many times ;-)

IRFWP is a 25 year old initiative for world peace through
interreligious dialogue and harmony. IRFWP is founded by
Rev. Dr. Sun Myung Moon and draws heavily from spiritual,
intellectual, and material resources directly linked to
Dr. Moon and related foundations.

IRFWP has representatives in 192 countries and a database
with thousands of active partners, religionists in the academy,
clergy, and grass roots leadership.

Then IRFWP carries out its programs through the Interreligious
and International Federation for World Peace (IIFWP).

http://irfwp.org/about/about_goal.shtml

But Frank Kaufmann is definitely the point man on the Encyclopedia
Project, and his boss in Rev. Moon's right hand man -- the Rev. Dr.
Chung Hwan Kwak.

There! Now you know even MORE than you probably wanted to know.

Uncle Ed


from_name: Charles Matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia hits the big time

body:
Ed Poor wrote

>I think we're finally beginning to be taken seriously. We have half a
million articles, and we're approaching the level of respectability
which Encyclopedia Britannica labored for centuries to achieve.

>The question is, where do we go from here?

Good question.  Obviously a million articles on wiki-en in a couple of years
time is within reach.  That now would 'merely' consolidate WP in English;
the versions in other languages are coming on fast (especially the German).
Getting it all interwikied might look like busy-work, but would surely be an
outstanding cross-language project, historically speaking.

>Larry Sanger left the project
for a mix of reasons, but SOME of them made sense (at least to me). We
never resolved the tension between:

A) Anyone can edit any article, any time; and,
B) People can count on every article to be accurate and fair.

Well, I think the project opted for A.  We can never have quite enough folks
to give warranties for B.  The next best thing is to have thousands of
Wikipedians editing, and A has turned out to be (unexpectedly) good at
making WP a popular place.

>I was approached by the director of a foundation (with a multi-million
dollar budget) to create a fork of Wikipedia leading to a print edition
to be published no later than 2008. If I do this, maybe it will get me
out of your hair? (The Cunctator wrote, "Rinse, wash, repeat.") But I
worry whether a fork is the best approach, or even necessary at all.

I wrote a few days ago that some sort of tipping point would be reached.  I
personally feel that this is also part of the WP model - what one could
expect of a successful attempt to make commoditised knowledge open-source.
I for one will lose little sleep over this.  I think the WP communities are
probably less schismatic, over content, than one might fear.  But time alone
will tell.

Charles


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia hits the big time

body:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:

> The question is, where do we go from here? Larry Sanger left the project
> for a mix of reasons, but SOME of them made sense (at least to me). We
> never resolved the tension between:
> A) Anyone can edit any article, any time; and,
> B) People can count on every article to be accurate and fair.
> Not enough people were interested in Larry's "Sifter Project". I don't
> know if anyone is using Magnus Manke's "tagging" software.

At the moment Magnus says it isn't prime time, and there appear to be no
developers on hand to work on it.

 > Do we need to
> fork?
> I was approached by the director of a foundation (with a multi-million
> dollar budget) to create a fork of Wikipedia leading to a print edition
> to be published no later than 2008. If I do this, maybe it will get me
> out of your hair? (The Cunctator wrote, "Rinse, wash, repeat.") But I
> worry whether a fork is the best approach, or even necessary at all.

Nah. A massively distributed rating system seems the only workable idea
to me, because it will harness dilettantism. Editorial committees aren't
the sort of thing that scales.

And I think a ratings system should be worth a try, on the assumption that
most of the ratings will be good faith. 'Cos if we can't assume that, then
we can't assume good faith for the project in general. And I think we can.

If their money can be directed that way, get them to hire a PHP developer
for a while to get the rating feature polished up ;-)

- d.


from_name: Rick

body:
--- "Blair P. Houghton" <blair at houghton.net> wrote:
> MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> Why do so much
> >people immediately ask for removal of sysop status?
> Sysops are only
> >human. Just asking nicely will have a much better
> result.
> >
> >
> Because if a few sysops lost their admin privs
> because they failed to
> perform due diligence,
> then all of them will start performing the diligence
> that is due.  And
> then you'd stop seeing
> calls for their ouster for such minor errors.
>
> --Blair

I was right the first time.  You really are a jerk.

RickK

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


from_name: Matt R

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia hits the big time

body:
--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:

> I was approached by the director of a foundation (with a multi-million
> dollar budget) to create a fork of Wikipedia leading to a print edition
> to be published no later than 2008. If I do this, maybe it will get me
> out of your hair? (The Cunctator wrote, "Rinse, wash, repeat.") But I
> worry whether a fork is the best approach, or even necessary at all.

The problem with a fork is that you'd leave most of the community behind, and
the community is A) large, B) full of experts in obscure topics, and C)
knowledgable about the state of existing WP articles.

Having "stable-development" branches for articles seemed an excellent idea, and
would effectively be an "in-project" fork...is this still under consideration?

-- Matt

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia hits the big time

body:
Googling for "International Federation for World Peace" one gets the
following excerpt from the first hit:

"On behalf of Rev. and Mrs. Sun Myung Moon, the Founders of the
Interreligious and International Federation for World Peace (IIFWP), we
welcome you to..."

Fred

> From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:51:14 -0700
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia hits the big time
>
> My position is that you are operating in bad faith at this point if you are
> not disclosing the name of the Foundation and the sort of things they have
> done.
>
> Depending on who it is and what we are likely to expect this could be very
> good or very bad. How about a clue before you get us all worked up?
>
> Fred
>
>> From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:04:56 -0500
>> To: <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia hits the big time
>>
>> The latest issue of Software Development magazine is on-line now:
>>
>> http://www.sdmagazine.com/documents/sdm0504e/
>>
>> Their excellent article "The Wiki Way" gives significant attention to
>> MediaWiki software and the Wikipedia. There's even a section on Wiki
>> Woes (like vandals).
>>
>> And I found a professor of church history whose students cite Wikipedia
>> in papers they write.
>>
>> I think we're finally beginning to be taken seriously. We have half a
>> million articles, and we're approaching the level of respectability
>> which Encyclopedia Britannica labored for centuries to achieve.
>>
>> The question is, where do we go from here? Larry Sanger left the project
>> for a mix of reasons, but SOME of them made sense (at least to me). We
>> never resolved the tension between:
>>
>> A) Anyone can edit any article, any time; and,
>> B) People can count on every article to be accurate and fair.
>>
>> Not enough people were interested in Larry's "Sifter Project". I don't
>> know if anyone is using Magnus Manke's "tagging" software. Do we need to
>> fork?
>>
>> I was approached by the director of a foundation (with a multi-million
>> dollar budget) to create a fork of Wikipedia leading to a print edition
>> to be published no later than 2008. If I do this, maybe it will get me
>> out of your hair? (The Cunctator wrote, "Rinse, wash, repeat.") But I
>> worry whether a fork is the best approach, or even necessary at all.
>>
>> Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Sj

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Trail of pages visited

body:
Sebastien, cool !  This is one of the little features of Socialtext
(for instance) that I'd like to see us incorporate.  Yes, it is very
helpful in keeping track of where you've been that day.

SJ

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:04:15 -0500, Sebastien BARRE
<sebastien.barre at kitware.com> wrote:
> At 3/16/2005 02:37 PM, Alison Russell wrote:
> >Hi again,
> >
> >Has anyone ever implemented a trail of pages visited? I would like to do a
>
> >floating trail which opens in a new mini window and keeps track of last
> >ten visits a user makes?
> >
> >Any ideas or examples anyone can refer me to?
>
> Yup, I wrote a small extension that does something very similar some weeks
> ago. It's not in a mini window though, but you can adapt it.
> http://public.kitware.com/Wiki/User:Barre/Extensions/kw_bread_crumbs


from_name: Alphax

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Careless image deletion : a minor outrage

body:
Anthere wrote:

> I do not even see what to add to your mail Sj.
>
> I do not think I can be listed amongst those who generally received it
> well. And the very idea is making my blood pressure too high.

That comes very close to raising my Wikistress.

I think we need some official policy for images "that lack copyright
tags, but are probably the uploader's own work". Especially in this
case, where the uploader made 3 contributions before disappearing.

[[en:User:Alphax]]


from_name: Galloway Joe

body:
Sj,

Yes, I'll flush things out more with some extended
examples.  I'll also attempt to show how Wikirec might
be folded into a Wikidata or WikiGIS. Thanks for the
input.

Joe

--- Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Joe: To test out the feasibility of what you
> describe, whether or not
> it would end up being part of a larger project, you
> should start by
> creating 3 or 4 sample pages.  Perhaps you can do
> this in your user
> space on meta... then we can figure out whether to
> develop it further
> there, help launch a new project, etc.
>
> SJ
>
>
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:43:57 -0800 (PST), Galloway
> Joe
> <threestudindia at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'd like to announce a proposed new project,
> currently
> > titled Wikirec,
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikirec.  A wiki
> for
> > outdoor recreation and locations.  Thanks
> >
> > Joe
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Make Yahoo! your home page
> > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> >
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> --
> +sj+
>  _ _
>
:-------.-.--------.--.--------.-.--------.--.--------[...]
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/


body:
--- "Blair P. Houghton" <blair at houghton.net> wrote:
> One of my favorite parts of the whole debacle was
> when GeorgeStepanek
> claimed I was a newbie.  His account is dated
> December 10.  Mine is
> dated January 1, but if I look around I can find
> edits I made over a
> year ago without having created a login.
>
> Quite the guffaw around my keyboard, I can assure
> you.

Jim Cecropia, please note this.  Your apologetics for
him can end now.

RickK

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Wikipedia hits the big time

body:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:04:56 -0500, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
wrote:
> The latest issue of Software Development magazine is on-line now:
>
> http://www.sdmagazine.com/documents/sdm0504e/

Yes, that's great.

> And I found a professor of church history whose students cite Wikipedia
> in papers they write.

How does the professor feel about this?

> The question is, where do we go from here? Larry Sanger left the project
> for a mix of reasons, but SOME of them made sense (at least to me). We
> never resolved the tension between:
>
> A) Anyone can edit any article, any time; and,
> B) People can count on every article to be accurate and fair.
>
> Not enough people were interested in Larry's "Sifter Project". I don't
> know if anyone is using Magnus Manke's "tagging" software. Do we need to
> fork?

I'm not sure how forking would help, but we do need to
* get simple tagging/rating software to work (neither templates nor
categories are scalable substitutes at present)
* have more explicit metadata [license info, article type, article content
flags; user licensing info, user flags]
* encourage the regular production of static, highly-organized subsets of
our dynamic, somewhat chaotic whole.   (CDs/DVDs and their preparation
steps; a variety of organizations of the encyclopedia, in online and print
versions)

> I was approached by the director of a foundation (with a multi-million
> dollar budget) to create a fork of Wikipedia leading to a print edition

Sexy.  I'm pretty sure we will publish a print edition on our own well
before 2008.  Would this change their interest in doin the same?  Perhaps
they want to publish a niche variant that we would not be interested in...

> to be published no later than 2008. If I do this, maybe it will get me
> out of your hair? (The Cunctator wrote, "Rinse, wash, repeat.")

Get who out of whose hair?  I wish I saw more of you around the mailing
list, in fact... don't let the trolls stress you out too much.

--
+sj+

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:01:20 -0700, Tom Haws <hawstom at sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
> Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>
> >I don't have all the answers, but the first idea
> >that popped into my mind was:
> >
> >* Let users (or a subset of them) "tag" an article
> >  version.
> >* A tag (or "flag") could take on any assigned
> >  meaning.
> >* My favorite tag idea: "Vandalism-patrolled by mav" (!)
> >* Here's another: "Selected for the print edition"
> >
> >
> This is the right approach.  All article versions need to have several
> slider flags associated with them in the database.  Some of those flags,
> like confidence, need to be automatically set according to the
> software's judgement of the trustworthiness of the editor (based on some
> reputation model).  Other flags need to have an interface radio button
> setting so readers/editors can rate the article versions on any number
> of aspects.
>
> >Or if a Wikipedian makes a minor correction (like
> >spelling, punctuation, grammar; or an obviously
> >relevant internal link) to an article version tagged
> >by the foundation - then it would be GREAT if the
> >software would notify the foundation's editors. They
> >could quickly review the change and probably be GLAD
> >to endorse the current version. This would PREVENT
> >forking, or at least reduce it to a bare minimum.
> >
> >Better yet, if a Wikipedian makes a SIGNIFICANT
> >IMPROVEMENT to a foundation-tagged article version,
> >I'd think the foundation would be OVERJOYED to
> >endorse it. (I'm planning to educate them about
> >using the History and Diff functions.)
> >
> >
> Right, Ed.  There is absolutely no reason for a fork.  All we need is
> some proactive, creative, and *bold* programming experimentation.
>
> Long live Respectipedia.org!!
>
> Tom Haws
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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


body:
It seems this mail didn't make it to the list. Sorry if it's a repost.
----

Erik Moeller schrieb:

 > The most important question seems to me whether Wikiversity will just be a
repository of learning materials, or a true online university that includes
 > - a graduation process
 > - original research
 > - a publication and peer review process for scientific papers, theses, etc.

It'll be more than a repository. I think what most people agree on is that it
should be a platform for e-learning, where courses are developed by teachers and
students together (I'm not sure it makes sense to even draw this distinction
here) and where people can communicate and help each other with learning.

In the long run it might make sense to also integrate ideas from
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiresearch
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Scholarly_Journals
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiAbstracts
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiReviews
and other pages, but I think the community should decide about this in the
future. Most of these ideas are quite abigious, not enough discussed in the
community, and none of them is needed to start working on an e-learning plattform.

Kurt


from_name: Rowan Collins

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Automatic creation of Table of Contents after three
	or more headers on a page??

body:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:29:50 +0000, Alison Russell
<alisonrussellireland at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I want a table of contents to be displayed. My main page has more than seven
> pieces of headline text, but my table of contents is not being created.

The Main Page is a special exception in the code to this rule. I'm not
sure whether or not the __FORCETOC__ and __TOC__ keywords override
this exception or not; if not, you'll have to hack the PHP code :(

> A past suggestion was to force it by using __FORCETOC__, or in a position
> other than just before the first heading by using __TOC__. Unfortunately I
> don't understand what this means because I am just an eager novice?!?
>
> What piece of code should I be editing with these lines?

Just plonk them in the middle of the article you want the TOC to
appear in. __FORCETOC__ will have the same effect wherever it is, so a
good choice might be right at the beginning of the text, so that other
editors will know it's there. __TOC__ should be inserted wherever in
the text you want the TOC to be.

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>--- Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Galloway Joe wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'd like to announce a proposed new project, currently
>>>titled Wikirec, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikirec
>>>
>>>
>>Sj  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Interesting.  I think this would make more sense as part of a general
>>>wikigeography project...
>>>
>>>
>>I agree with Sj that this would be better as part of a project with a
>>broader scope.
>>
>>Related proposals on Meta include:
>><http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimaps>
>><http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiatlas>
>><http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiGPS>
>><http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimaps/GeonamenDB>
>>
>>
>
>Also wikiGIS (the .com and .org of that and wikimaps are owned by the
>foundation; or at least registered by me and awaiting the foundation to claim
>them from me)
>
>Yep ? this all needs to be in one uber-project that has highly-structured data
>in a relational database. The wikidata module needs to be developed before this
>type of project could exist, however. I hear there is some possible funding for
>that.
>
>-- mav
>
>
Hoi,
There is indeed funding for WikiData. Programming will start within two
weeks. WikiData will be a buildingblock within the MediaWiki software.
It will indeed enable new projects.

Initially there are two prime candidates for Wikidata: Wiktionary and
Wikispecies. The implementation of "the ultimate wiktionary" is part of
the implementation of Wikidata.
Thanks,
GerardM


from_name: Henry Tan-Tenn

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Newspaper links article keywords to Wikipedia

body:
Andre Engels ti 2005/3/14 ChS 04:27 sia-kong:
> Their algorithm seems to be to link all capitalized words, except at
> the beginning of a sentence.

I see patterns like "...but Chief [[Cabinet]] Secretary [[Hiroyuki
Hosoda]]...", so it seems to be a bit more than that.  In any case the
feature isn't Earth-chattering but it's worth seeing if more mainstream
media will similarly interface with Wikipedia (and Wikinews), and
whether that has impact on Wikipedia's content development.


from_name: J.F. de Wolff

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Image deletion

body:
Both SJ and Anthere are right that images should not be deleted haphazardly
or without due process.
There is, however, the eternal risk of serious copyright infringement.
Brand new users are able to upload files they have saved from a webpage
onto their hard drive. However beautiful the Wuerzburg panorama, if the
copyright is owned by a third party then Jimbo, Mav or Angela find their
mailboxes full with threatening messages from lawyers (as has happened
several times in the past few months).
The image sleuthing team has a *tremendous* backlog, and we cannot expect
them to work harder. Perhaps images should be quarantained while their
status is being investigated. These will be available on the [[Image:]]
page, but cannot be inserted into articles unless a tag has been inserted,
preferably by the uploader, to the effect that it can be used without legal
problems.
Perhaps the image uploading page should have a dropdown box that lets the
uploader select a copyright format. "Possibly unfree" is NOT an option.

Jfdwolff

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.2 - Release Date: 11/03/2005


from_name: Zoney

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia hits the big time

body:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:26:59 +0000 (GMT), Matt R
<matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> --- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
>
> > I was approached by the director of a foundation (with a multi-million
> > dollar budget) to create a fork of Wikipedia leading to a print edition
> > to be published no later than 2008. If I do this, maybe it will get me
> > out of your hair? (The Cunctator wrote, "Rinse, wash, repeat.") But I
> > worry whether a fork is the best approach, or even necessary at all.
>
> The problem with a fork is that you'd leave most of the community behind, and
> the community is A) large, B) full of experts in obscure topics, and C)
> knowledgable about the state of existing WP articles.
>
> Having "stable-development" branches for articles seemed an excellent idea, and
> would effectively be an "in-project" fork...is this still under consideration?
>
> -- Matt
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

You are making assumptions as to which way people (including or
particularly experts in obscure topics) would go...

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


from_name: Blair P. Houghton

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
>
> And the editors who do not hang around because of some petty usenet flame
> war being inappropriately conducted on a wiki...?

...go edit another page for a while...

--Blair
"Until it's time to come back and clean up, which is what I was doing."


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
Andrew Lih said:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:58:20 +0000, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The 3RR was supported by comunity conmsensus. If you want to change it
>> get another consensus
>
> Text that was voted on says:
> "If you violate the three revert rule, sysops may block you for up to
> 24 hours."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three_revert_rule_enforcement
>
> The policy provides authorization for blocking, but not much wisdom or
> guidance on whether to use it. Just wanted to note that page locking is
> also a viable (and less drastic) option for admins.

I dispute any suggestion that protection of a page is in any way *less*
drastic than blocking a user.  If a page is protected, *nobody* can edit
it.  If one or two over-enthusiastic revert warriors are blocked for up to
a day, only their potential edits are lost--and since they're likely to be
holding up editing by their reverts, their loss is often a very good
thing.


subject:
I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton. Re: [WikiEN-l]Unreasonabl
	eblock of user Blair P. Houghton by adminCryptoDerk

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> You're expecting far too much from administrators.  We're editors, not
> fairy godmothers.  I should bloody well hope that the "loser" stews.
> That's what the 3RR is for.  Learn to play nice or stew.  How hard is it

Or, in this case, learn to construct a false case for a block and laugh
while your victim stews.

> for a bright editor to work out what side of that equation he wants to be
> on?

How hard is it for an admin to warn a talk page that users have been
recommended for blocking and give them a chance to address the
accusations directly?

--Blair


from_name: Jim Cecropia

body:
----- Original Message -----
From: "JAY JG" <jayjg at hotmail.com>
To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
Subject: Re: I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton. Re:[WikiEN-l]Unreasonableblock of user
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:41:32 -0500
I really don't think this is helpful. I sense that Blair can be a useful contributor to Wikipedia. He is new and can be engaged. I've seen those more agreesive than he become valuabled members of the community. I would like him to calm down and work with the community, and also for the community to not go out of their way to bait him or any other honest user.

And as to the specific comment "Little clairvoyance is needed to know that the very first time you are reverted, it means that your edits are contentious and disputed." Nonsense. It can mean that, or it can mean that someone or more people editing the page feel invested in particular wording and are dismissing someone out of hand, or a combination of the two.

Sometimes I have excised entire new sections from an article, but I carry them over to Talk, and explain why they are incorrect or problematic and try to suggest ways to make them better.

--C

>
> > From: "Blair P. Houghton" <blair at houghton.net>
> >
> > JAY JG wrote:
> >> I hadn't heard "Be bold" referred to as Wikipedia's "prime
> >> directive" before; I'm not sure everyone here would agree.  In
> >> any event, while I don't know the details of this particular
> >> case, it amazes me how often people attempting to make major,
> >> usually contentious, and often highly POV re-writes to articles
> >> cite "Be bold", yet fail to note that the majority of that
> >> policy is devoted to when you *should not* "Be bold".  In
> >> particular, much of the policy clearly points out that on
> >> disputed issues and controversial subjects one should, instead,
> >> get consensus on Talk: pages first.
> >
> > Clairvoyance isn't my strongest skill.  I don't know who will
> > complain until I do what I have a right to do.  And I suspect I'm
> > "only human" in that regard, as is everyone else.
>
> Little clairvoyance is needed to know that the very first time you
> are reverted, it means that your edits are contentious and
> disputed.  And it's a bad sign when people start taking about what
> they "have a right to do" on Wikipedia; as far as I know, editing
> Wikipedia is still not covered under the Constitution, Bill of
> Rights, or similar legislation.
>
> >> I believe we are straying into "argument from silence" logical
> >> fallacy territory here.
> >
> > It's the basis for most of the Wikipedia.  What doesn't get
> > munged is accepted.  And if you see a problem, you fix it.  Has a
> > lot to do with the way life works, too.  Which is one of the
> > attractive features of the place.
>
> As soon as you are reverted, the "argument from silence" is
> obviously no longer correct.
>
> >> Cooperation is something that comes from both sides; it cannot
> >> be unilaterally imposed by "Bold" individuals.
> >
> > Tell that to the guy who reverted me, hollering "consensus!" from
> > the back of his mule, then having me jailed for arguing the
> > point, then including everything I added
>
> Referring to one's opponents on Talk: pages as "juvenile
> delinquents" and oneself as the "teacher" is a particularly bad
> strategy for getting cooperation.
>
> > (but retaining a bit of stuff that is soon to be gone anyway).
>
> This statement is an ominous sign.
>
> Jay.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: 3RR again (was Re: I have unblocked Blair P.
	Houghton.Re:[Wik
	iEN-l] Unreasonableblock of user Blair P. HoughtonbyadminCryptoDer k)

body:
Jim Cecropia wrote:
> Tony Sidaway said:
>>Most of the time it should be just there in the background.  But I like
>>that it's there.  Selected?  Yes, it only targets edit warriors.
>>
>
> Some edit warriors.

Transvestite edit warriors.  (Just kidding. Hi, Tony!)

--Blair


body:
Rick wrote:
> --- "Blair P. Houghton" <blair at houghton.net> wrote:
>
>>MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>>Why do so much
>>
>>>people immediately ask for removal of sysop status?
>>
>>Sysops are only
>>
>>>human. Just asking nicely will have a much better
>>
>>result.
>>
>>Because if a few sysops lost their admin privs
>>because they failed to
>>perform due diligence,
>>then all of them will start performing the diligence
>>that is due.  And
>>then you'd stop seeing
>>calls for their ouster for such minor errors.
>
>
> I was right the first time.  You really are a jerk.

So you're saying it's okay for admins to do the bidding of people who
falsify accusations without any checking of the facts?

And you call me a jerk?

--Blair


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: What is de.wikiversity.org?

body:
Thanks Kurt, for this mail.

I think this is typically what should be described and explained on the
appropriate wiki page, so that everyone knows and understand what
Wikiversity is planned to be. Ideally, a bit of translation of the core
of the project would be nice as well I think.

Ant

Kurt Jansson a ?crit:
> It seems this mail didn't make it to the list. Sorry if it's a repost.
> ----
>
> Erik Moeller schrieb:
>
>  > The most important question seems to me whether Wikiversity will just
> be a repository of learning materials, or a true online university that
> includes
>  > - a graduation process
>  > - original research
>  > - a publication and peer review process for scientific papers,
> theses, etc.
>
> It'll be more than a repository. I think what most people agree on is
> that it should be a platform for e-learning, where courses are developed
> by teachers and students together (I'm not sure it makes sense to even
> draw this distinction here) and where people can communicate and help
> each other with learning.
>
> In the long run it might make sense to also integrate ideas from
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiresearch
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Scholarly_Journals
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiAbstracts
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiReviews
> and other pages, but I think the community should decide about this in
> the future. Most of these ideas are quite abigious, not enough discussed
> in the community, and none of them is needed to start working on an
> e-learning plattform.
>
> Kurt


from_name: Sean Barrett

body:
> You want a public forum quiet while people are being denied their rights?

What is this "rights" thing to which you refer?

--
 Sean Barrett     | Wherever you go, there's always
 sean at epoptic.com | another tedious Buckaroo Banzai quote.


subject:
I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton. Re: [WikiEN-l]
	Unreasonableblock of user Blair P. Houghton by adminCryptoDerk

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote

> I dispute any suggestion that protection of a page is in any way *less*
> drastic than blocking a user.  If a page is protected, *nobody* can edit
> it.  If one or two over-enthusiastic revert warriors are blocked for up to
> a day, only their potential edits are lost--and since they're likely to be
> holding up editing by their reverts, their loss is often a very good
> thing.

That omits the edits to other pages blocked users cannot make.

Page protection is unpopular; temp-banning 3RR violaters seems to have a
good consensus behind it.  This displays a rational attitude to the content
of the page in question, I think.  Edit warring usually stops the
development of a page right in its tracks, often for the sake of a part of
the whole that is not that significant.

Charles


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Trail of pages visited

body:
I am not sure at all this is a good idea.
It might conflict with our (yet to be born) privacy policy.

Why do you want such a feature ?

Ant

Alison Russell a ?crit:
> Hi again,
>
> Has anyone ever implemented a trail of pages visited? I would like to do
> a floating trail which opens in a new mini window and keeps track of
> last ten visits a user makes?
>
> Any ideas or examples anyone can refer me to?
>
> Thanks,
> Alison


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia hits the big time

body:
>... and in fact is down
> again ...
>
> Jay

... and up again ...

Charles


subject:
3RR again (was Re: I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton.
	Re:[WikiEN-l] Unreasonableblock of user Blair P. Houghton
	byadminCryptoDer k)

body:
 "Andrew Lih" wrote:

>
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:53:44 -0700, Tom Haws <hawstom at sprintmail.com> wrote:
> > Fresh thinking and good point against *enforcing* the 3RR.  But I don't
> > completely understand the next paragraph.  Can you restate?
> >
> > >The problem with 3RR as it's being practiced now -- it assigns blame
> > >much too early in the process, without even an attempt to stabilize
> > >the situation and let cooler heads prevail.
>
> Sure. Before the 3RR, the standard procedure was for an uninvolved
> admin to come in and protect a page with an edit war, so no one could
> edit it. The parties were forced to go to the Talk page to hash
> something out. No one was declared right or wrong, no individuals were
> singled out and the admin didn't care about the relative viewpoints.
>
> After an unspecified amount of time the page would be unprotected so
> the article could be updated.
>
> -Andrew (User:Fuzheado)

Exactly. And thank you for making the point that while a page may be protected, the talk for that page is not. In extreme cases (as was done some time ago with "Terrorism," in which the editors were almost literally at each throats) the page is protected, and a "working version" is set up as a subpage. This is not protected (obviously) and everyone can edit it and argue, straw poll, etc., to their heart's content. It took a month or so, but a pretty nice version (IMO) was hacked out and all the "warriors" signed off on it.

3RR is just a meatax, and it's a selected meatax.

--C
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm


subject:
I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton. Re:[WikiEN-l]Unreasonable
	block of user

body:
Rick wrote:
> --- "Blair P. Houghton" <blair at houghton.net> wrote:
>
>>One of my favorite parts of the whole debacle was
>>when GeorgeStepanek
>>claimed I was a newbie.  His account is dated
>>December 10.  Mine is
>>dated January 1, but if I look around I can find
>>edits I made over a
>>year ago without having created a login.
>>
>>Quite the guffaw around my keyboard, I can assure
>>you.
>
> Jim Cecropia, please note this.  Your apologetics for
> him can end now.

Do your comments ever depend from reality?

--Blair


body:
>
> Andrew Lih said:
> > On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:58:20 +0000, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The 3RR was supported by comunity conmsensus. If you want to change it
> >> get another consensus
> >
> > Text that was voted on says:
> > "If you violate the three revert rule, sysops may block you for up to
> > 24 hours."
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three_revert_rule_enforcement
> >
> > The policy provides authorization for blocking, but not much wisdom or
> > guidance on whether to use it. Just wanted to note that page locking is
> > also a viable (and less drastic) option for admins.

Tony Sidaway said:

> I dispute any suggestion that protection of a page is in any way *less*
> drastic than blocking a user.  If a page is protected, *nobody* can edit
> it.  If one or two over-enthusiastic revert warriors are blocked for up to
> a day, only their potential edits are lost--and since they're likely to be
> holding up editing by their reverts, their loss is often a very good
> thing.

No, a block is much different from protection, assuming that the admin protecting is cognizant of the rules--blocks as short as possible, and except in the case of a really steaming revert war, should be applied if one of the active editors on the topic asks. The protecting admin should stand ready to discuss and mediate if need be.

3RR is simply being used too freely and selectively and in a very lazy fashion. As I pointed out elsewhere, it stacks the deck toward editors who may have taken an ownership interest in an article, and provides no means of determining whether this is the case or not.

Blocking has tradititionally been considered a severe punishment on Wikiepedia. Protection of appropriate length, at worst, forces the participants into dialog and also gives the protecting admin an opportunity to examine the issue. The 3RR is a punishment and an insult to the non-vandal user. It is does not engage him/her in any but an accusatory way, and it drives away people who often contribute valuable material to Wikipedia.  --C
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

body:
> From: Sj
> > And I found a professor of church history whose students cite
> > Wikipedia in papers they write.
>
> How does the professor feel about this?

I dunno. I ran into him after lunch, while visiting the seminary where
he teaches. I wanted to talk to someone about getting the grad students
there, to polish their English skills by contributing to Wikipedia.
(Prof. Fuzheado led some of his students in this, and I suppose having
their articles edited mercilessly was of some benefit to them.)

But he suggested I talk to the academic dean, Dr. Andrew Wilson, who is
in charge of their ESL program. Andy was less interested in my ESL idea
than in a newly revived project of a colleague of his: Dr. Frank
Kaufmann, Director of Interreligious Affairs at the Interreligious and
International Federation for World Peace (IIFWP). I met with Frank on
Monday night about possible incorporation of Wikipedia content in the
IIFWP's proposed Encyclopedia.

I confess that I was so excited by this latter possibility that I forgot
all about the history professor!

> Do we need
> > to fork?
>
> I'm not sure how forking would help, but we do need to
> * get simple tagging/rating software to work (neither
> templates nor categories are scalable substitutes at present)
> * have more explicit metadata [license info, article type,
> article content flags; user licensing info, user flags]
> * encourage the regular production of static,
> highly-organized subsets of
> our dynamic, somewhat chaotic whole.   (CDs/DVDs and their preparation
> steps; a variety of organizations of the encyclopedia, in
> online and print
> versions)

I like tagging. Ever since I was a kid ("you're it!"). No, seriously!
Maybe mav and I can get Magnus Manke's software in gear for this.

I've been asked to propose a budget.

> Sexy.  I'm pretty sure we will publish a print edition on our
> own well before 2008.  Would this change their interest in
> doing the same?  Perhaps they want to publish a niche variant
> that we would not be interested in...

Well, it would be heavy on World Peace, I guess (not much interest here
along those lines, everyone would rather talk about who can ban whom, or
fight about the correct name of Danzig/Gdansk. [By the way, Frank seemed
to know more about the dispute over the name of that city than I ever
picked up by reading Wikipedia.])

The IIFWP isn't looking to make money on a print edition or a DVD.
Perhaps they could fulfill Jimbo's dream of distributing a high-quality
encyclopedia to schools in poor African countries. (They are an NGO of
the UN, by the way.)

Uncle Ed


from_name: mp01 at maphi.net

subject: [Wikitech-l] Simple ACL implementation for 1.3.11

body:
> What about diffs ? I hope they are protected too ?

I think so; at least I could not hack around that.

> What about medias ? Sounds a little more difficult to do.

Images are not used in my wiki, as my provider runs PHP in safe mode and
the whole upload does not work. I have not looked at that aspect. I
would have to check whether the db table has any restriction column at
all.

Brion has a very good point in Templates - this is an open hole that has
to be closed.

Thanks for the feedback!

MaPhi


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Trail of pages visited

body:
Sebastien BARRE said:
> At 3/16/2005 11:54 AM, you wrote:
>
>>I don't want you seeing that I viewed [[double-sided dildo]] prior to
>>viewing [[GAU-17]].
>
> And how would you view that ? Of course it should not be implemented
> server-side, that would be dumb, but client-side, as a cookie/session
> (like  I did in my extension). And you should have a choice to disable
> it.

Take your favorite browser and visit a few Wikipedia pages.

Done that?  Okay, here's what to do next.

Now take your mouse up to the top left of your browser.  There is usually
a button marked with a left-facing arrow. Beside it there is usually a
small downward arrow.  Click on the downward arrow and a drop-down box
will appear, containing a list of all the places on Wikipedia that you
have visited.  Select one of the items on the list and you will be taken
back to that item.

Why reinvent the wheel?


body:
>
> Tony Sidaway wrote
>
> > I dispute any suggestion that protection of a page is in any way *less*
> > drastic than blocking a user.  If a page is protected, *nobody* can edit
> > it.  If one or two over-enthusiastic revert warriors are blocked for up to
> > a day, only their potential edits are lost--and since they're likely to be
> > holding up editing by their reverts, their loss is often a very good
> > thing.

> Charles Matthews wrote:
>
> That omits the edits to other pages blocked users cannot make.
>
> Page protection is unpopular; temp-banning 3RR violaters seems to
> have a good consensus behind it.  This displays a rational attitude
> to the content of the page in question, I think.  Edit warring
> usually stops the development of a page right in its tracks, often
> for the sake of a part of the whole that is not that significant.
>
Well of course page protection is unpopular and banning has a "good consensus'--page protection affects *me* but banning affects *them*. :)

But consider that page protection can be short--just long enough, if the participants calm down, for the admin to look at the situation and put a few choice comments and suggestions on the article talk, and see if he s/he can get some feedback as to how to proceed. Yes, this is some work for the admin, but the admin cannot take a step like that and walk away. In fact, one admin who did that (among other things) was de-admined. With the 3RR block, the admin is walking away: the "winning" side is satisfied, and the "loser" stews in his/her juices for 24 hours. This is easy but doesn't contribute to Wikipedia, the community, or the encyclopedia.

--C
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm


from_name: Jonathan ILIAS

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Trail of pages visited

body:
Anthere a ?crit :
> I am not sure at all this is a good idea.
> It might conflict with our (yet to be born) privacy policy.

I have not the time and knowlegde to do this now... maybe later...

Maybe a hacker would do this ;-) :
it should be implemented using a cookie to store the trail and a
javascript to read and display it.

--
Jonathan ILIAS


list: wiktionary-l

from_name: Nefercheprure Waenre

subject: [Wiktionary-l] Czech speakers

body:
> > Do we have a Czech speaker here?
yes.

> > What does "Je???ek" really mean - Father Christmas?
I am not quite sure what realy means Father Christmas.

> > I had an edit on it. wiktionary and I am not sure if this is a vandal or
> > serious edit - He added that the Czech word means "Jesus, the child"
Thats correct.

> I'm not a Czech speaker, but I can assure you it was a serious edit.
> In Czech Republic the one who brings presents is the little Jesus. Try
> searching "Je???ek christmas" on google. The Chech word for "Jesus" is
> "Je???", see http://www.slovnik.cz/.

je???ek (with lowercase j) is the word used for the gifts collectively

The phrase ,,P?ejeme V?m ... a bohat?ho je???ka``
means, somewhat crudely translated,
,,We wish to You (pl/honorific) ... and a plenty of gifts.``
or ,,... and rich distribution of presents`` in a more literal way.

--Nefercheprure


from_name: Marc Colbeck

subject: [Foundation-l] Proposal for New Project Wikirec

body:
Hello Everyone,

I'm new and checking out the list because I think that the Wikipedia is so
cool.

This seems obvious to me because I'm a paramedic, but has anyone thought of,
or suggested, Wikimedicine?

Medicine changes so fast and there are so many experts out there that I
think this would be a really great topic.  It could include Anatomy,
Physiology, Pathophysiology, Pharmacology, Treatment Protocols, etc.

Alternatively, I've been looking into making my site (I own
www.paramedicine.com - it's dormant now) a wiki site and letting people do
this there.  I think it would be better to have an actual wiki site for this
though.

Thanks for the e-space.

Marc Colbeck
Critical Care Paramedic
Paramedic Instructor


subject:
I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton. Re: [WikiEN-l] Unreasonable
	block of user Blair P. Houghton by adminCryptoDerk

body:
Blair P. Houghton said:
>
> I couldn't, for example, discuss the accusation of 3RR violation at all
>  in the fora on which it was being discussed.

Yes, it would be nice to have the degree of granularity necessary to block
a user from, say, article space edits, but permit him to go to Wikipedia:,
Talk: and User talk:, where such things are commonly discussed.

>
> I had to join this mailing list (which honestly I'd rather not have
> cluttering up my in-box) to get ANY communication with the community.

Well, that was not strictly necessary.  Most sysops receive and read
email, I should expect.  It's part of the job.  There are about 400 of us.
 I do think we should have a mailing list of our own, though, so we don't
clutter up Wikien-l with stuff like this.
>
> Blocking someone based on a knee-jerk reaction to n biased accusation
> is  a very bad policy, IMO.

So it would be.  You have to admit, though, you've hardly been respecting
Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  The way I see it, the block has
given you a chance to consider what you had been doing wrong--if you
choose to take it.


subject:
I have unblocked
	Blair	P.	Houghton.	Re:	[WikiEN-l]	Unreasonableblock of user
	Blair P. Houghton by adminCryptoDerk

body:
Blair P. Houghton said:
>
> I was referring however to those in the Weight Training page who seem
> to  think they know better than I do what a consensus is, what Weight
> Training is, or what due process is.

If you can't agree with your co-editors what consensus means, it's
probably fair to say that you have not built a consensus with them.


body:
Blair P. Houghton said:
> You want a public forum quiet while
>  people are being denied their rights?

Oh dear.


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia hits the big time

body:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:

[from wikien-l - Ed is talking about another foundation,
not the WMF, who are interested in doing a Wikipedia
distribution]

> The foundation plans to hire professional editors and
> writers. They'll create, say, an additional 4,000
> articles (on lofty topics, no doubt ;-) and also
> choose a subset of the half million Wikipedia articles
> to whip into shape.
> But I'm recommending to the foundation that any
> articles it revises be posted back to Wikipedia
> immediately - as opposed to waiting until their
> publication day. (I don't know the legal niceties; is
> prompt re-publication a requirement, or can they hang
> on to their version in-house till the last minute?)
> BOTH projects would surely benefit from this cross-
> pollination.

Heh. I wonder how their versions will go down with the Wikipedia community.
Are they familiar with the history of Nupedia?

Have you read [[Category:Wikipedia 1.0]] ? I've been putting project pages
into it that I think are relevant to the endeavour.

Also, the Wikimedia Foundation would beyond a doubt be highly interested in
working with this other foundation!

> I'd like to do whatever I can to reduce the 'forkiness' of
> the foundation's project and increase the 'give-and-take-iness'
> of it. Collaboration has been the key of Wikipedia's success;
> let's not change horses in midstream.

Indeed!

- d.


from_name: Charles Matthews

body:
Blair P. Houghton wrote

>... a great deal of slothful acceptance of the status quo.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not reading any more of this
scattergun moaning.

Charles


subject:
I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton.
	Re:[WikiEN-l]	Unreasonableblock of user

body:
Blair P. Houghton said:
> JAY JG wrote:
>
>>
>> Referring to one's opponents on Talk: pages as "juvenile delinquents"
>> and oneself as the "teacher" is a particularly bad strategy for
>> getting cooperation.
>
> I prefer to interpret the facts as showing nobody was trying to
> cooperate with me.
>

How about: there are more of them than you and they seem to have a
different perspective?  Maybe you could work on changing their minds
instead of saying, as you did in one edit summary that they're engaged in
a conspiracy to publish bad information?  You forgot to assume good faith.


subject: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia hits the big time


subject:
I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton.Re:[WikiEN-l]
	Unreasonableblock of user

body:
JAY JG said:
>>
>>Nope.  Just a statement that I know the truth and the truth always wins
>> when consensus is at stake.
>>
>>--Blair
>
> Blair, I regret to inform you that I'm going to have to withdraw from
> the  discussion at this point, because of self-imposed feeding
> restrictions.
>
Uh, yep.  Me too.  I also need to take an, ummm, feeding stop.  I mean break.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton.

body:
No, I didn't violate the 3RR.  I read it right before I made the second reversion.  I knew what I was doing.  After a couple of reversions, I acquiesced to changes others wanted in the edit.  The following revert was to that revision of the edit.  The 3RR kept me from refusing to move on the issue.  That I was then accused of "evading" the 3RR is just another of GeorgeStepanek's prevarications.  That you're buying into it is a shame.

--Blair

David Gerard wrote:
> Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>
>> David Gerard wrote:
>
>
>>> What bit of the 3RR is ambiguous?
>
>
>> Who said it was? Read my rebuttal.  I didn't violate the 3RR.
>
>
>
> This turns out not to be the case:
>
> 05:22, 15 Mar 2005:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weight_training&diff=prev&oldid=11159169
>
> (the revert:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weight_training&diff=11159169&oldid=11090304
>
>
> 06:07, 15 Mar 2005:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weight_training&diff=prev&oldid=11159654
>
> (the revert:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weight_training&diff=11159654&oldid=11159169)
>
>
> 15:13, 15 Mar 2005:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weight_training&diff=prev&oldid=11169234
>
> (the revert:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weight_training&diff=11169234&oldid=11159654)
>
>
> 17:43, 15 Mar 2005:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weight_training&diff=prev&oldid=11177874
>
> (the revert:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weight_training&diff=11177874&oldid=11169234)
>
>
> 00:06, 16 Mar 2005:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weight_training&diff=prev&oldid=11184398
>
> (the revert:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weight_training&diff=11184398&oldid=11177874)
>
>
> That's five reversions in under 19 hours. If you don't think this is a 3RR
> violation, you have misunderstood the rule and should read it again.
>
> Part of the lack of sympathy for your position may be due to your
> aggressive
> approach. Personal attacks or apparent personal attacks in edit summaries
> are *exceedingly* ill-favoured. Please stop making them:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weight_training&diff=prev&oldid=11169234
>
> and many examples in
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weight_training&action=history
>
> Please [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith]]. Thanks.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: 3RR again (was Re: I have unblocked Blair P.
 Houghton.Re:[Wik
 iEN-l] Unreasonableblock of user Blair P. HoughtonbyadminCryptoDer k)

body:
Tpny Sidaway said:

>
> Jim Cecropia said:
> >
> >
> > 3RR is just a meatax, and it's a selected meatax.
> >
> Most of the time it should be just there in the background.  But I like
> that it's there.  Selected?  Yes, it only targets edit warriors.
>
Some edit warriors.

--C
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm


body:
Oooh  - I didn't realize you had an emergency medicine book.  I'll go
looking for it.

Thanks,
Marc

________________________
Marc Colbeck, BHSc,
Critical Care Paramedic
Paramedic Instructor
College of the North Atlantic - Qatar
Workk: marc.colbeck at cna-qatar.edu.qa
Home: marc at colbeck.ca

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Mayer" <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal for New Project Wikirec

>
> --- Marc Colbeck <marc at colbeck.ca> wrote:
>> This seems obvious to me because I'm a paramedic, but has anyone thought
>> of,
>> or suggested, Wikimedicine?
>
> All that info should be included in Wikipedia as encyclopedia articles and
> in
> Wikibooks as textbooks. There is already an emergency medicine textbook on
> Wikibooks and a good deal of articles in Wikipedia on the subject.
>
> -- mav
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Make Yahoo! your home page
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>


body:
From: "Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport at bluebottle.com>
>
> Jim Cecropia said:
> >
> >>
> > Well of course page protection is unpopular and banning has a "good
> > consensus'--page protection affects *me* but banning affects *them*. :)
>
> Precisely.  It's like the speed limit.  Only unrestrained editors ever
> whine about it.>
> > But consider that page protection can be short--just long enough, if
> > the participants calm down, for the admin to look at the situation and
> > put a few choice comments and suggestions on the article talk, and see
> > if he s/he can get some feedback as to how to proceed. Yes, this is
> > some work for the admin, but the admin cannot take a step like that and
> > walk away. In fact, one admin who did that (among other things) was
> > de-admined. With the 3RR block, the admin is walking away: the
> > "winning" side is satisfied, and the "loser" stews in his/her juices
> > for 24 hours. This is easy but doesn't contribute to Wikipedia, the
> > community, or the encyclopedia.
> >
> You're expecting far too much from administrators.  We're editors, not
> fairy godmothers.  I should bloody well hope that the "loser" stews.
> That's what the 3RR is for.  Learn to play nice or stew.  How hard is it
> for a bright editor to work out what side of that equation he wants to be
> on?

"Learn to play nice or stew." You see, you've made my point and the point of several others, Tony. Application of the 3RR in blocking makes the blocking admin judge and jury, and essentially assigns guilt where we don't know that the admin even examined the issue.

Also be aware that a careless 3RR block also stigmatizes that user. It's the same concept that you don't parade a person on trial in front of the jury in prison clothes or cuffs--the jury "knows" that person hasn't been found guilty yet, but with those stripes and chains he sure "looks" guilty.

The "bright" editor may do what I've done on certain articles: not edit them any more. But by me I'm not being bright, I'm failing to contribute and, frankly IMO, some articles I've abandoned are not the better for leaving them to the partisans.

As to the admin's job. A year ago we had <200 admins, now we're pushing 400. No admin is required to do anything (which is one reason I like people to express positive interest in the job); but if one of these 400 takes the time to step into a situation, they should be ready to at least see it through its initial stages.

--C
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] I've added a note to the 3RR policy page

body:
Hey, Rick, how about knocking off the name calling:

<< > Because if a few sysops lost their admin privs > because they
failed to > perform due diligence, > then all of them will start
performing the diligence > that is due. And > then you'd stop seeing >
calls for their ouster for such minor errors. > > --Blair I was right
the first time. You really are a jerk. RickK >>

Uncle Ed
_former_ wikien-l mailing list administrator

P.S. I still have the password, so I can suspend people's posting
privileges, hee hee!


body:
David Gerard wrote:
> Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>
>> No, I didn't violate the 3RR.  I read it right before I made the
>> second reversion.  I knew what I was doing.  After a couple of
>> reversions, I acquiesced to changes others wanted in the edit.  The
>> following revert was to that revision of the edit.  The 3RR kept me
>> from refusing to move on the issue.  That I was then accused of
>> "evading" the 3RR is just another of GeorgeStepanek's prevarications.
>> That you're buying into it is a shame.
>
> Reverting to different previous versions is reverting.

I'm not going to argue the point of the rule with you.  If you wish
to continue being a willing dupe of those who wish to railroad honest
people, then just keep on sullying your robes.

--Blair


from_name: Karl Eichwalder

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Careless image deletion : a minor outrage

references:
<742dfd06050315075513b4e021@mail.gmail.com>
	<sh4qfcppvy.fsf@tux.gnu.franken.de> <42377F1F.8030904@apotheon.com>

body:
Chad Perrin <perrin at apotheon.com> writes:

> I'm a little curious as to what you mean by "a wrong impression" here.

It is distorted or blurred ("sehr verzerrt") - in reality it looks
different.

Don't get me wrong, the picture is very good and we should preserve it
as an artefact, it is just that I want a "more" realistic on the
W?rzburg main page.

--
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/                           |      ,__o
                                                        |    _-\_<,
                                                        |   (*)/'(*)
Key fingerprint = F138 B28F B7ED E0AC 1AB4  AA7F C90A 35C3 E9D0 5D1C


from_name: Alison Russell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Thanks Sebastien - Positioning??

body:
Hey thanks Sebastien for you help with the trail, however your positioning
description was a little confusing.

So I have saved the file kwBreadCrumbs.php into extensions folder and
and entered include("extensions/kwBreadCrumbs.php"); into LocalSettings.php.

I want the trail to run along the top of the page like in your Wiki system.
I have set $on_top_hack = 1;
What does "use the tag anywhere in the page " mean?

Thanks in advance, really neat little idea. Also just in case you were
wondering my wiki will not be going public. Its just a research project for
university.

Ali.


from_name: Skyring

subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:31:04 -0500, steven l. rubenstein
<rubenste at ohiou.edu> wrote:
> I am glad that Silverback and I are in agreement as to
> principles.  However, Skyring and Silverback are still either
> misrepresenting or misunderstanding the issues in this particular case.
>
> Skyring wrote:
> >In this case Adam changed "shall be" to "is". That changes the meaning
> >and saves only a few letters. Nor did he use any commonly-used form of
> >words to indicate a paraphrase. He used boldface to indicate that he
> >thought it was a factual statement.
>
> First, your claim that changing "shall be" to "is" is a change in meaning
> is absurd.  The Constitution is using the subjunctive because guess what,
> constitutions are written before they are instituted.  But once the
> constitution is instituted, events actually come to pass, and the
> subjunctive should not be used for ongoing or actual events.

Perhaps you can explain Section 101 then. It clearly says "There shall
be an Inter-State Commission."

Using your logic above, one might expect that there is now an
Inter-State Commission. But one would be wrong.

I am sorry that you see this as some sort of game. I suggest that if
you don't know about Australian constitutional matters, it's probably
wisest not to comment on them.

--
Peter in Canberra


from_name: geni

body:
> You don't "get consensus" in the way you "get a bunch of bananas from
> the store."  You "get consensus" in the way you "get the joke."
>
> Consensus isn't something you obtain, demand, husband, or cite.  It's
> something that happens.

In fact it is something I cite and try to obtain. We work toward
obtaining a cunsensus on article.

> Consensus follows action.  To believe otherwise is to obviate the prime
> directive of Wikipedia, which is to '''be bold'''.

The prime dirrective is to make an encyolpedia. in this case someone
else was bold by revting the chage instantly.

> The cooperative counterparts in a community of bold people are those who
> accept the boldness of those who are right, regardless of the prior
> consensus.

Should I be bold and block you under the "don't dissagree with geni"
rule and wait to see if a consensus forms or not?

> This concept of cooperation imbues every organization that relies on the
> truth.  Ask Galileo sometime.  Or ask your 5th-grade science teacher why
> you were taught about Galileo's legal problems. (Not that I think I'm
> Galileo or these noobs are the Inquisition; but a boy's got to get out
> the ''reductio ad absurdum'' sometimes to put a point across.)
>
> --Blair

I fail to see the anology.
--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Apropos of absolutely nothing whatsoever

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MPOV
>
> Better names welcomed.

Maybe it's apropos of this:

[[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]

See first item under ''Specific examples of personal attack include''.

But maybe that's not what you wanted.

--Blair


body:
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com>
>
>
> --- "Blair P. Houghton" <blair at houghton.net> wrote:
> > One of my favorite parts of the whole debacle was
> > when GeorgeStepanek claimed I was a newbie.  His account is dated
> > December 10.  Mine is dated January 1, but if I look around I can find
> > edits I made over a year ago without having created a login.
> >
> > Quite the guffaw around my keyboard, I can assure
> > you.
>
> Jim Cecropia, please note this.  Your apologetics for
> him can end now.
>
> RickK
>
Well, that's kind of a tepid smoking gun. I thought you were going to catch him admitting he was Usama bin Laden or something.

If you've read my posts, I've made two points: (1) I believe in engaging "problem" users, not banning them; I've said much the same about others users (172, GBWR, Rei come to mind) that I've been at polar opposites with; (2) 3RR is a new and abusive procedure in a Wikipedia that is moving to control minority users instead of improving the content.

Your post here illustrates part of the problem. If you can "prove" Blair is a bad guy (and assert that I am trying to "prove" him a good guy) you don't have to deal with the substantive issues. I think that's called a straw man, and a sort of convoluted way of begging the question.

--C

--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm


from_name: Pavol Cupka

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Theora / ogg usage

body:
Hi,

just wanted to say that I'm also using Firefox on Linux and the ogg
file you mentioned spawned the Helix player on mine and I actually saw
the video.

That's all

Pavol

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:51:40 -0500, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> Sj wrote:
>
> >[2] Article containing one of the only known video files on Wikipedia :
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrophic_cardiomyopathy
> >
> I was about to write a mail asking you where in the world there's a
> video file on that page, but after about 10 minutes of looking and
> mouseovering every single link, I finally figured out that the .ogg file
> on that page is actually a video file.  Even using Mozilla Firefox on
> Linux, clicking on the link spawned my audio player, due to the .ogg
> extension, which in typical use means "Ogg Vorbis audio file".
>
> .ogm (for "Ogg Media") is a de-facto standard extension for Ogg files
> containing video, but I'm not aware of whether Xiph.org has a position
> on that.
>
> I'm not sure whether sending the right content-type headers would fix
> the problem; perhaps it would?  At the very least, it should say on the
> page that this is in fact a video file, rather than hoping that people
> will be able to infer that it's supposed to be a video file...
>
> -Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: David

body:
David Gerard wrote:

> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MPOV
>
> Better names welcomed.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
Militant POV?


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Image deletion

body:
J.F. de Wolff wrote:

> Perhaps the image uploading page should have a dropdown box that lets
> the uploader select a copyright format. "Possibly unfree" is NOT an
> option.

Yes, we're long overdue for this, as well as a required field for
entering source information.

--Michael Snow


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
Ray Saintonge said:
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>>
>>I dispute any suggestion that protection of a page is in any way *less*
>>drastic than blocking a user.  If a page is protected, *nobody* can
>>edit it.  If one or two over-enthusiastic revert warriors are blocked
>>for up to a day, only their potential edits are lost--and since they're
>>likely to be holding up editing by their reverts, their loss is often a
>>very good thing.
>>
> If an editor has something to add that is not related to the war it
> will  still be just as valid afte the lock-up period has ended.  Very
> little  is of such immediate importance as to not survive the
> application of a  little patience.
>

And the editors who do not hang around because of some petty usenet flame
war being inappropriately conducted on a wiki...?


from_name: Chad Perrin

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MPOV
>
> Better names welcomed.
>

works for me

--
Chad
[ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]


body:
Jim Cecropia said:
>
>
> 3RR is just a meatax, and it's a selected meatax.
>
Most of the time it should be just there in the background.  But I like
that it's there.  Selected?  Yes, it only targets edit warriors.


subject:
I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton. Re: [WikiEN-l]Unreasonabl
	eblock of user Blair P. Houghton by adminCryptoDerk

body:
Jim Cecropia said:
>
>>
> Well of course page protection is unpopular and banning has a "good
> consensus'--page protection affects *me* but banning affects *them*. :)

Precisely.  It's like the speed limit.  Only unrestrained editors ever
whine about it.>
> But consider that page protection can be short--just long enough, if
> the participants calm down, for the admin to look at the situation and
> put a few choice comments and suggestions on the article talk, and see
> if he s/he can get some feedback as to how to proceed. Yes, this is
> some work for the admin, but the admin cannot take a step like that and
> walk away. In fact, one admin who did that (among other things) was
> de-admined. With the 3RR block, the admin is walking away: the
> "winning" side is satisfied, and the "loser" stews in his/her juices
> for 24 hours. This is easy but doesn't contribute to Wikipedia, the
> community, or the encyclopedia.
>
You're expecting far too much from administrators.  We're editors, not
fairy godmothers.  I should bloody well hope that the "loser" stews.
That's what the 3RR is for.  Learn to play nice or stew.  How hard is it
for a bright editor to work out what side of that equation he wants to be
on?


from_name: Rick

body:
--- Jim Cecropia <jcecropia at mail.com> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com>
> >
> >
> > --- "Blair P. Houghton" <blair at houghton.net>
> wrote:
> > > One of my favorite parts of the whole debacle
> was
> > > when GeorgeStepanek claimed I was a newbie.  His
> account is dated
> > > December 10.  Mine is dated January 1, but if I
> look around I can find
> > > edits I made over a year ago without having
> created a login.
> > >
> > > Quite the guffaw around my keyboard, I can
> assure
> > > you.
> >
> > Jim Cecropia, please note this.  Your apologetics
> for
> > him can end now.
> >
> > RickK
> >
> Well, that's kind of a tepid smoking gun. I thought
> you were going to catch him admitting he was Usama
> bin Laden or something.
>
> If you've read my posts, I've made two points: (1) I
> believe in engaging "problem" users, not banning
> them; I've said much the same about others users
> (172, GBWR, Rei come to mind) that I've been at
> polar opposites with; (2) 3RR is a new and abusive
> procedure in a Wikipedia that is moving to control
> minority users instead of improving the content.
>
> Your post here illustrates part of the problem. If
> you can "prove" Blair is a bad guy (and assert that
> I am trying to "prove" him a good guy) you don't
> have to deal with the substantive issues. I think
> that's called a straw man, and a sort of convoluted
> way of begging the question.
>
> --C

I think his emails speak for themselves.  He came in
here with a chip on his shoulder, he keeps making
attacks on even the people who are trying to work with
him, you keep saying, "He's just a newbie that we need
to make concessions to."  He objects to the idea that
he's a newbie and claims to have been around for about
a year and half.  He therefore knows the Wikipedia
philosophy of Wikiquette and assume good faith, and
yet he continues to write these nasty emails in which
he's the only person right in the entire world.

RickK

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250