from_name: Robert Scott Horning

body:
Benjamin Webb wrote:

>I have not yet recived any real reply about this project. I would like to
>hear from someone whether it could actually become a wikimedia project, and
>what would need to happen before it could. Any comments would be apreciated.
>
>Benjamin Webb (User:Bjwebb on wikipedia, meta, commons, wikibooks, rodovid
>and wikitree)
>
>P.S. It has a meta page at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Rodovid.org
>
>
What really needs to happen now is to refine the proposal page and get
it into a position that spells out in clear langauge what all of the
objectives of the project are, and perhaps even what some initial
policies might be.

I would suggest comparing it to the following pages for a similar level
of completeness before you get much further:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity/Modified_project_proposal
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews&oldid=87446  (to
compare to how Wikinews did its proposal back elsewhen)

After this, the proposal pages need to be translated into at least four
other major Wikimedia languages like Russian, Spanish, French, Chinese,
etc.  The full list of suggested langauges is at:
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_project_policy

Afterward a voting page needs to be set up and some advertisements for
voting on the project need to be put on Goings-on for Meta and several
Village Pumps on various projects.  For the Wikiversity vote, I set up a
series of ads to be translated on
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity/Vote

This really made it easy to go to the various Wikimedia websites and
drop a note informing people that the vote was taking place.  The idea
here is that you need to involve as many Wikimedia users in the decision
making process as possible, and to remember that not everybody speaks
English.  Indeed the non-English speaking group of Wikimedia users is so
substantial that it really makes no sense to start a new major project
without a major effort to get input from these other language groups.

After that, you should have a legitimate answer or some solid input from
Wikimedia users in general over if the idea is a good one or not.  Due
to the nature of this project, widespread input is especially
recommended.  Mind you, all of the above steps are outlined in the
official New Project Policy, as approved by the Wikimedia Foundation
board.  The examples I cite are from successful projects that at least
have the attention of the board and very substantial community support.

If you want some assitance on this, feel free to e-mail me privately or
hit my user talk page on Wikibooks (the best way to get ahold of me).
 Most members of the special projects committee (of which I'm not a
part) would also be willing to help you out as well in terms of general
assistance or to answer questions about this process.

--
Robert Scott Horning


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject:
[Foundation-l] Rodovid.org, family tree wiki,
 wishes to become a wiki project


list: wikien-l

from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] A Solution to the Image Problem

body:
On 3/23/06, Mark Wagner <carnildo at gmail.com> wrote:
> I haven't checked already-tagged images, but new uploads (based on the
> data at http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-March/041534.html)
> have at least a 40% error rate for tagging.
>
> --
> Mark
> [[User:Carnildo]]

Depends on the tags. If we deleted everything labled magazine cover we
would be in far better shape.

--
geni


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Greasemonkey script to filter the watchlist page

body:
On 3/23/06, Jonathan <dzonatas at dzonux.net> wrote:
> I added a little comment to the top of the script to install it:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dzonatas/script/history
>
> You might want to move those over to Meta since they are more general
> than Wikipedia.

Good point. I actually test them at bluwiki.org, which is a hell of a
lot faster (at least, for me) than WP. I've now managed to get my
history/diff script to work on FireFox 1.5 and it's, well, great. :)
Just lacking the time to properly package, release and publicise it
today.

Steve


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Gregory Price

subject: [Wikitech-l] Tor and "X-Forwarded-For"

body:
On 3/22/06, freakofnurture <freakofnurture at hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/22/06, freakofnurture wrote:
>
> If what you said was true, I would not have been able to perform this edit
> through it:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=44333667
>
> Sorry, your IP is a Tor proxy.

Do you mean you fired up a Tor client, told it to make a route
with 213.216.199.14 as the exit node, and then made this edit?

Or did you use 213.216.199.14 as a straightforward web proxy?

> On 3/22/06, Wwwwolf wrote:
>
> All right, so my guess is there's some Bloody Idiot in the neighborhood who
> runs a Tor node, 80/tcp traffic comes out of that host and gets intercepted
> and forwarded by the ISP's proxy (that *every* customer is forced to use, I
> remind you again).
>
> In other words, the blocked IP is, in my educated guess, *not* the Tor node.
> It just unwittingly hides a Tor node behind it.

I think Wwwwolf has the right explanation here.
There's no Tor node at 213.216.199.14:
  http://serifos.eecs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/exit.pl?addr=1
but there are 82.128.216.214 and 82.128.214.254,
both near 82.128.217.58 and in the 82.128.128.0/17 block
owned by Oulu Telephone Company:
  http://serifos.eecs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/whois.pl?q=82.128.216.214

Evidently the vandal is using one of those two as his exit node,
and the resulting traffic passes through the same ISP proxy
as the complaining user's traffic.

Glad XFF enables us to distinguish this guy's traffic
from the Tor-routed traffic.

Greg


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] ROUGE ADNMIN - the game

body:
Tim Starling wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
>
>>http://common-lisp.net/project/lifp/rouge.htm
>
>
> I went on a deletion rampage and scored 998 rouge with -997 karma before eventually meeting my
> demise in a wheel war against an angry admin. What I want to know is, why didn't Jimbo show up to
> save the day? Not very realistic if you ask me.
>

It's written in Common Lisp, {{sofixit}}.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 558 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060323/83bb5a53/attachment.pgp


list: foundation-l

from_name: Benjamin Webb

subject:
[Foundation-l] Rodovid.org, family tree wiki,
	wishes to become a wiki project

body:
I'm glad you like it. As for similarity, when importing GEDCOMs, a similar
record warning appear, but this doesn't happen normally. I think if you are
doing it manually you are supposed to search for similar records yourself.
Perhaps I could ask Baya, the site's creator, about the possiblity of a
similarity warning when editing manually. (I am posting to the list rather
than him because his English is not terribly good).

What do you think about the possibility of it becoming a Wikimedia project?

Benjamin Webb

On 23/03/06, Brian <brian0918 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is probably one of the better genealogy wikis I've seen,
> particularly because it supports GEDCOM import, which saves quite a bit
> of time. My main problem is how the software can help people figure out
> that two separate users' family trees are connected at some point; some
> sort of similarity-ranking system needs to be created (if it hasn't
> already) which would instruct users to merge pages that have more than N
> items in common (name, date of birth, location, marriage, children, etc).
>
> brian0918
>
>
> Benjamin Webb wrote:
>
> >I have not yet recived any real reply about this project. I would like to
> >hear from someone whether it could actually become a wikimedia project,
> and
> >what would need to happen before it could. Any comments would be
> apreciated.
> >
> >Benjamin Webb (User:Bjwebb on wikipedia, meta, commons, wikibooks,
> rodovid
> >and wikitree)
> >
> >P.S. It has a meta page at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Rodovid.org
> >_______________________________________________
> >foundation-l mailing list
> >foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject:
[WikiEN-l] major groupthink on [[WP:CASH]] (California state
 highways)

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
<snip>
> I believe the only real solution is "nuke from space".

"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only
way to be sure."

(Ripley, /Aliens/)

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 558 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060323/d03b7786/attachment.pgp


subject:
[WikiEN-l] "Fatally Flawed" -- Internal Britannica
 Review	Tackles Nature Methods

body:
geni wrote:
> On 3/22/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 04:52:09 +1100, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Britannica must be struggling. I recently got a letter offering me a free
>>>Britannica CD-ROM (basic edition) if I subscribed. I don't think that is a
>>>good sign.
>>
>>I thought that was a pretty old offer?  I seem to recall something
>>similar at least five years back.  Could be wrong, of course.
>>
>>I think these days anybody selling access to information is
>>struggling.  Too much of it is free.
>
>
> Journals appear to be doing ok.
>

And they're not always accurate either, *despite* the peer-review
process. Does anyone remember the name of the nanotech researcher who
used the same set of results over and over and over again, for about a
dozen experiments that he'd supposedly done? I believe that /Nature/ was
involved in that one...

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 558 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060323/1abebbef/attachment.pgp


body:
Stan Shebs wrote:
<snip>
> the explanations that come to mind are either that we have many
> editors with the IQ of a turnip,

Sir, that is a great insult to turnips...

The IQ of the group is the lowest IQ of a member of the group divided by
the number of people in the group.

The [[Eternal September]] is upon as.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 558 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060323/def07982/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Captcha word quiz

body:
Ilmari Karonen wrote:
> James D. Forrester wrote:
>
>>Steve Bennett wrote:
>>
>>>On 3/21/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Initialy you could just use plain speach and rely on the issue that
>>>>no one else uses them so no one is going to bother makeing a bot.
>>>>More advanced aproaches could involve spoting male and female voices
>>>>against background noise.
>>
>>That could work, though automated (unattended) text-to-speech synthesis
>>has not significantly improved in my lifetime. (Read: it's terrible.
>>Yes, even IBM's whizzo-prang stuff. Horrendously disjointed and
>>considerably more difficult to use as a "test" of something's humanity
>>than would be desired, I feel.)
>
>
> Yes, but the nice thing is that we don't really need speech synthesis
> for this, since recordings of spoken words are plentiful and easily
> available.  In fact, we already have a perfect source: the Spoken
> Wikipedia project.
>
> Cutting the recordings up to build a decent library of a few thousand
> words (with a dozen or more recordings of each) does take some work, but
> could be semiautomated (given that we have access to the written
> version) and easily done by volunteer contributors.
>
> Background babble can be generated automatically by mixing random
> segments from the same recordings.  Other noises can also be included:
> anyone with a laptop and a microphone can easily contribute practically
> limitless amounts of digitally recorded noise.
>

Aided by the fact that most modern laptops have microphones built in.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 558 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060323/8f227c0e/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Radio Wales interview as ogg

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 3/23/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>For those who missed it, I've put my segment up:
>>
>>http://static.rocknerd.org/david/radiowales-q0-mono.ogg
>
>
> For me, the sound keeps fading in and out, especially early on? Is
> this just me (with my prejudice against .ogg), or does anyone else get
> this?
>

Kinda... it's only 46kbps after all.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 558 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060323/95daa412/attachment.pgp


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Next step in "fair use" cleanup?

body:
On Mar 23, 2006, at 8:31 PM, KWH wrote:

> Legal arguments about the fair use rationale are hopeless. Any lawyer
> qualified to give advice on the matter would not give it for free on
> the Internet without that famous disclaimer, "this does not constitute
> legal advice, contact a licensed professional...", q.v.
> [[Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer]]. I think my own opinion is pretty good
> just as an average US citizen with an interest in the law, but I won't
> bore anyone with it unless upon request. Therefore the bottom line is
> anyone who's concerned about themselves should talk to a lawyer about
> their specific case.

Clearly we need an elite strike team of pro bono attorneys to judge
each fair use claim, armed with deletion privileges. They can even
have their own usergroup: "ninja-attorney".

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


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

subject: [Foundation-l] Waerth's stewardship

body:
At the request of Oscar from the Netherlands wikipedia, I have temporarily
removed Waerth's status as a Steward, pending the resolution of his conflict
with the nl.wikipedia community. I do this with a heavy heart, and recognize
that something like this has never been done before, however, it became
necessary in order to thwart Waerth's threats to override his own block on  nl.wiki.

I would be grateful to receive the comments and suggestions of other
stewards on this matter, especially because the circumstances are  unprecedented.

Please let's not turn this into a flame fest, but rather a productive
discussion of what policy should be.

Danny


subject: [Foundation-l] Waerth's stewardship


body:
I understand what you mean, but due to the size of many GEDCOMs, it will be
easier to automate some merging, until we have a sufficient userbase to do
otherwise.

Just to fill you in. What happens with GEDCOM at the moment, is that if
there is a similar person already in the wiki to one in the GEDCOM, then the
importer recieves a message asking him what he want to do. (If this doesn't
make sense, try importing a file yourself.) If you have any problems with
the GEDCOM system, it may be due to the fact that the system, and infact the
whole site is still under development.

Benjamin Webb

On 23/03/06, Patrick, Brad <bpatrick at fowlerwhite.com> wrote:
>
> To the Rodovid.org team:
>
> I would really hope that the people who look into this don't ever
> automate such a process.  One of the most compelling problems for even
> life long genealogists, much less newbies, is taking a fork in the road
> without knowing they missed the real turn a ways back.  Proof, sourcing,
> etc. of a common ancestor, much less linking two extended genealogies
> and really "advancing" a family history, should be worked out wiki-style
> on a talk page of each ancestor before there is a "merge"; such an
> instance may seem simple in the case of same birthdate, wives, children,
> etc., but genealogy is a field where things are very often not as they
> appear.
>
> I applaud the effort to move this forward; my critique is certainly
> meant as constructive.  The fundamental point of migration to such
> systems is that quality is the only credential making the system worth
> using.  If people upload a database of 1,000 unsourced ancestors, and
> expect a program to automatically match them to what already exists, it
> will be a failure.
>
> -Brad
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Benjamin Webb
> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 2:57 PM
> To: brian0918 at gmail.com; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Rodovid.org, family tree wiki,wishes to
> become a wiki project
>
> I'm glad you like it. As for similarity, when importing GEDCOMs, a
> similar record warning appear, but this doesn't happen normally. I think
> if you are doing it manually you are supposed to search for similar
> records yourself.
> Perhaps I could ask Baya, the site's creator, about the possiblity of a
> similarity warning when editing manually. (I am posting to the list
> rather than him because his English is not terribly good).
>
> What do you think about the possibility of it becoming a Wikimedia
> project?
>
> Benjamin Webb
>
> On 23/03/06, Brian <brian0918 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > This is probably one of the better genealogy wikis I've seen,
> > particularly because it supports GEDCOM import, which saves quite a
> > bit of time. My main problem is how the software can help people
> > figure out that two separate users' family trees are connected at some
>
> > point; some sort of similarity-ranking system needs to be created (if
> > it hasn't
> > already) which would instruct users to merge pages that have more than
>
> > N items in common (name, date of birth, location, marriage, children,
> etc).
> >
> > brian0918
> >
> >
> > Benjamin Webb wrote:
> >
> > >I have not yet recived any real reply about this project. I would
> > >like to hear from someone whether it could actually become a
> > >wikimedia project,
> > and
> > >what would need to happen before it could. Any comments would be
> > apreciated.
> > >
> > >Benjamin Webb (User:Bjwebb on wikipedia, meta, commons, wikibooks,
> > rodovid
> > >and wikitree)
> > >
> > >P.S. It has a meta page at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Rodovid.org
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >foundation-l mailing list
> > >foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Disclaimer under IRS Circular 230: Unless expressly stated otherwise in
> this transmission, nothing contained in this message is intended or written
> to be used, nor may it be relied upon or used, (1) by any taxpayer for the
> purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the
> Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and/or (2) by any person to
> support the promotion or marketing of or to recommend any Federal tax
> transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed in this message.
>
> If you desire a formal opinion on a particular tax matter for the purpose
> of avoiding the imposition of any penalties, we will discuss the additional
> Treasury requirements that must be met and whether it is possible to meet
> those requirements under the circumstances, as well as the anticipated time
> and additional fees involved.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Confidentiality Disclaimer: This e-mail message and any attachments are
> private communication sent by a law firm, Fowler White Boggs Banker P.A.,
> and may contain confidential, legally privileged information meant solely
> for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this
> communication is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately
> by replying to this message, then delete the e-mail and any attachments from
> your system. Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Tels

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki converter (follow-up)

body:
Moin,

On Thursday 23 March 2006 21:15, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 3/22/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
> > One could ignore edits that have been reverted.  Detecting reverts,
> > in the strict sense of the word, is easy: all you need is a hash
> > value for each revision.
> >
> > Of course, this wouldn't be perfect.  But it'd be as close to perfect
> > as any automated system can be.  And it _would_ skip most vandals.
>
> And what happens if the next edit merges some content back in from the
> reverted text?

Since this happens _after_ the export, it is irrelevant. When you export
an article, you can only take into account edits done before that moment
in time :)

But otherwise, valid points. That "contributor" stuff can easily get very
messy and unpractical.

Btw, the coverter is very neat and I will toy around with it later -
whether wikimedia uses it or not. Luckily, I can just skip the whole
"contributor" issue, because the wiki I maintain doesn't use the same
license as wikipedia.

Best wishes,

Tels

--
 Signed on Thu Mar 23 21:35:15 2006 with key 0x93B84C15.
 Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/
 PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.

 "A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train
 stops. On my desk I have a work station." -- Unknown

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 481 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060323/2ca2a6a1/attachment.pgp>


from_name: John Lee

body:
Stan Shebs wrote:

>Mark Gallagher wrote:
>
>
>
>>When we say "that's policy", what we're *really* saying is "because I
>>and a few other people said so".  Learning the *reason* why we do
>>things, so that a) we can do them properly, and b) we can explain them
>>to others, is vital.
>>
>>
>>
>The image use policy page said all that three years ago when I
>started at WP, and it still does; I didn't have any trouble
>understanding it after working on WP for a couple weeks. The
>upload page has all manner of links and warnings, which link
>to even further explanations, eventually going back to first
>principles for those that want to learn all about copyright law.
>
>While I want to assume good faith in all of this, in actually
>looking through a random swath of recent untagged uploads, the
>explanations that come to mind are either that we have many
>editors with the IQ of a turnip, or they are deliberately
>ignoring the policy and explanations we're putting in front
>of them. Whichever the case, their uploads are not helping
>build the encyclopedia, and we need to stop making excuses
>for them.
>
>Stan
>
>
I agree here. I want to AGF, and perhaps in a number of cases, yes, the
editor is just acting in good faith. But I've seen a number of cases --
even on Commons -- where the uploader just wanted some pictures for his
article. Take, for instance, the images on [[Michelle Kwan]], which are
all licenced under the GPL and yet are sourced from Encarta or some
Tripod webpage -- neither of which mentions *anything* about the GPL.
Numerous images previously used on the article as fair use were taken
down (for what reasons, I know not) and replaced with these ostensibly
"free" images. I suspect this is more common than we might think. I
browse the celebrity articles quite often, and I keep seeing this game
of musical chairs going on with the images because they're fair use.
Each time the image gets replaced with either an image lacking
source/licence data or another fair use image -- in either case, the
image will end up deleted after a while, and the cycle will repeat. Is
it any wonder that fans get fed up and start blatantly lying to us about
the copyright status of images?

Then there are some cases where you just have to AGF but also yell "what
the bloody hell were you thinking?" at the uploaders. For instance,
there's an image of [[Tunku Abdul Rahman]] on Commons tagged as public
domain because of age when it wasn't even taken 50 years ago. (And I
really doubt Malaysian copyright law provides for such a short period of
copyright.) And then we have a number of images tagged with a template
identifying them as PD because they are a work of an employee of the
Malaysian Prime Minister's Office. Only problem is that there's
*nothing* to show that this assertion is true. The Malaysian PM's site
is copyrighted by the Malaysian government, with all rights reserved --
and I doubt it wasn't created by employees of the PM's Office.

These mistaken taggings are more worrying, IMO, because they tend to
come from active editors who just don't know any better. For most other
cases I think it is reasonable to AGF, but most images with copyright
problems *are* uploaded by throwaway accounts or people who blatantly
lie to us. These are the two main problems (from my experience): good
and active editors simply not knowing better, and throwaway accounts/bad
faith editors uploading just any old damn image -- and in some cases
tagging it incorrectly as free.

Having said that, I do think that it might be a tad over-reacting to
make it extremely complicated/impossible for new editors to upload
images. The problem is that the only good way to tell if someone is
acting in good faith and at least knows something about our policies is
by how long that editor has been here and how many edits that editor has
made. Pretty much anything else is subject to gaming, as Mark
Wagner/Carnildo has pointed out.

John


list: wikipedia-l

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] "Fatally Flawed" -- Internal Britannica Review
 Tackles Nature Methods

body:
Ben Yates wrote:
> I've HTML-ized the Britannica PDF, if anyone's interested:
> http://benyates.info/Britannica/
>

Awesome - can you link the footnotes too? :)

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 558 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20060323/974be9aa/attachment.pgp


from_name: Nicolas Weeger

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] MediaWiki converter to Plain Text, XML, DocBook,
 PDF

body:
> A long, long time ago, I started writing a PHP script to convert
> MediaWiki markup into XML. I believe it is now feature-complete and
> relatively reliable. Not only can it process a single wiki text, but a
> list of articles, taking the text from any MediaWiki-based site online.
> It uses the same method to replace templates.

Great thing!

Question: will it generate internal links, ie if i select [[wikipedia]]
and [[Jimmy Wales]] as articles, will the links between be "internal",
or to the site?
It'd be great to have the result xml as "self-contained" as possible.

*dreams of having, on MediaWiki, a way to select articles efficiently
and exporting directly*

Nicolas


from_name: KWH

body:
On 3/23/06, "Matt Brown" <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/23/06, jkelly at fas.harvard.edu <jkelly at fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
> >   I think that this is largely true.  My suggestion was meant to be more
> > conservative, in that it would only expedite deletion of media where we are
> > saying "This is fair use", and it is being used in an article, but we have no
> > rationale whatsoever.
>
> Fair enough.  Is it required that the original uploader provide the
> fair use rationale, or can someone else?  If we require the original
> uploader, that might be a problem.  If you're not the original
> uploader, but provide a rationale, are you thereby assuming
> responsibility for a copyright lawsuit?
>
> -Matt

I've done a bit of thinking on this, and I believe that whoever
includes the image tag in the article would be responsible for
preparing a work containing the fair use material. If User A uploads
the image, B puts it in the article, and then C breezes by and puts a
fair use justification, then B would probably be responsible; but if D
comes by and corrects a typo in the article and leaves the image tag
in, then D could become responsible.

But this is all hopelessly speculative. My opinion is that the purpose
that the source, tag, and fair use justification serve is allowing
downstream consumers of the image database (future editors and also
those who download the wikipedia database to build fork sites) to make
a solid determination of whether they want to include the image in
their work. It's a form of "rights clearance" database.

Legal arguments about the fair use rationale are hopeless. Any lawyer
qualified to give advice on the matter would not give it for free on
the Internet without that famous disclaimer, "this does not constitute
legal advice, contact a licensed professional...", q.v.
[[Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer]]. I think my own opinion is pretty good
just as an average US citizen with an interest in the law, but I won't
bore anyone with it unless upon request. Therefore the bottom line is
anyone who's concerned about themselves should talk to a lawyer about
their specific case.

The decision is quite simply: "if I decide to take this article and
edit it, and there is an image included in the previous version, do I
want to include it in my version? Do I feel comfortable with the
source and fair use justification? Would I feel better if I removed or
replaced it, and why?" Life's much easier when you consider it in that
light.

[[User:Kwh]]


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Foundation-l] 2 blocks on nl

body:
You have my full support.

oscar wrote:
> after a fight over articles moving onto user talk pages and finally irc,
> muijz and waerth have been blocked this night by galwaygirl "they are both
> blocked until they work out a solution between themselves", for one week, on
> nl.wikipedia.
> several attempts at mediation had failed before this measure was taken, the
> last one on irc, in which it became clear that no peace would be agreed
> upon: both kept on provoking the other.
>
> oscar
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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


subject: [Foundation-l] 2 blocks on nl


from_name: Ilmari Karonen

body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 3/22/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
>
>>One could ignore edits that have been reverted.  Detecting reverts, in
>>the strict sense of the word, is easy: all you need is a hash value for
>>each revision.
>>
>>Of course, this wouldn't be perfect.  But it'd be as close to perfect as
>>any automated system can be.  And it _would_ skip most vandals.
>
> And what happens if the next edit merges some content back in from the
> reverted text?

This case falls under "not perfect but as close as can be".  It's
essentially the same problem as someone pasting content from another
article, or from another source entirely.  Even your diff-based scheme,
while nifty indeed, doesn't solve that.  In general, nothing can.

By the way, it might be possible to optimize your scheme by using some
form of histogram analysis to quickly establish lower bounds on edit
distances.  For that matter, if you're not using it already, even just
the difference in article lengths gives a weak lower bound on the edit
distance.  Meanwhile, hashing can be used to establish upper bounds,
both by hashing the entire text to detect exact reversions and by
hashing deterministically chosen chunks (such as article sections) to
detect local changes.

--
Ilmari Karonen


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [Wikitech-l] Subpages in main namespace?

body:
On 3/23/06, Omegatron <9ybf94w02 at sneakemail.com> wrote:
> > > At Wikipedia-en there is a policy against it. For a human-readable
> > > encyclopaedia it's a bit of a tacky way of organising sub topics.
> > >
> > > Steve
>
> There's actually a policy against it?  Some people are trying to bring
> it back.  See
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_page

Wow. Great reinventing of the wheel. Seriously, it's great to see a
new generation of atomicists at work, fighting the good fight
([[User:The Cuncator/Agglomeration]]) but the terminology of root page
and branch page is silly and frankly ugly.


from_name: Justin Cormack

body:
On 24 Mar 2006, at 00:32, Jesse W wrote:

> On Mar 23, 2006, at 3:19 PM, Ilmari Karonen wrote:
>> Jesse W wrote:
>>> On Mar 23, 2006, at 11:04 AM, Mark Wagner wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/06, Jesse W <jessw at netwood.net> wrote:
>>>>> It's also important to note that 95% of the images on the english
>>>>> wikipedia do have tags (although many may be wrong, it's true).
>>>>
>>>> I haven't checked already-tagged images, but new uploads (based on
>>>> the
>>>> data at
>>>> http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-March/
>>>> 041534.html)
>>>> have at least a 40% error rate for tagging.
>>>
>>> OK.  That is an issue.
>>
>> Indeed.  So the house is almost clean now.  It's only the
>> underside of
>> the carpet that's dirty.  :-(
> Well, that's progress... Having gigantic piles of dirt lining the
> hallways, and dirt on the walls, and the roof, is worse than having
> dirt under the carpet.  Yes, we need to deal with the dirt under the
> carpet, too, but we have still made progress.

No, we have just put up signs saying "dirt".

The whole idea of the classification was to then delete 90%+ of it
(if you read Jimbo's original comments).

Free encyclopaedia anyone?

Fair use content is not free content.

Justinc


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Foundation-l] Sister Project Cooperation

body:
Birgitte Arco wrote:

>I hesitate to write this because it might seem
>self-serving in a dispute I am involved in.  But
>truthfully I am thinking of the larger picture here.
>There is a discussion on the Talk page for the English
>Wikipedia Main Page under "Sister projects on new Main
>Page".  The main sticking point in this discussion is
>the people from the English Wikipedia truly believe
>they know what Wikisource is or is not and want to
>write a description, but are unable to understand that
>people from Wikisource have a better idea of what
>Wikisource is than they do.  Of course that statement
>is inherently biased, but everyone involved has the
>best intentions.  For my part everyone there has been
>completely civil and willing to explain themselves.
>Unfortunately there is a prevailing attitude that
>people from a "different" project should not decide
>how they are represented in the Sister project
>template.  This is over a minor wording issue and I am
>not asking people to intercede on this.  However if
>you read through the comments, it is easy to see how
>easily this could have devolved into complete
>bitterness.  I hope that outcome has been avoided now.
>
>I worry that in the future a similar issue may come up
>and things will turn out worse.  I believe fostering a
>sence of harmony and cooperation between sister
>projects is the utmost importance.  I wonder if it
>would be best for wikimedia to have an agreed upon
>sister project template at meta for each necessary
>language, with the recommendation that all daughter
>projects base thier local Sister project templates
>from the meta one.  This would provide an authorative
>example of what is acceptable and should hopefully
>prevent any future turf wars.
>
>Thanks for considering this.  I would suggest if this
>idea is implented; it is done without any haste and is
>well-advertised amoung all sister projects in many
>languages.
>
It's an interesting question that puts a number of issues into a
microcosm, particularly the right of a person to edit an article about
himself.  Still, I don't agree with your proposed solution.

A very important principle in the development of sister projects and
language sub-projects has been the autonomy of each project.  This is
something that I have strongly defended from the earliest days of both
Wiktionary and Wikisource.   It can leed to some peculiar anomalies in
Wikipedia when articles on the same subject in different languages are
completely different, or even contradictory.  Some may find that state
of things to be unacceptably disturbing, but to me it reflects a rich
vibrancy.

Common policy threads may run through all projects, but there is and
should be a great deal of latitude in determining the specific
application of a policy in each project.  A policy may be thoroughly
discussed before it is applied to its originating project to the
complete satisfaction of that community's  members.  If, however,
someone presumes that a Wikipedia consensus authorizes the application
of a policy to any other project he will quite rightly meet stiff
opposition; the other project was never a part of the original consensus
or vote.

Thus the article about Wikisource in Wikipedia should follow Wikipedia
rules about articles in its principal namespace.  In that context
Wikisource is no different than someone whose biography appears in
Wikipedia.

Eclecticology


from_name: Jofi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Links to previous / next image on image pages?

body:
Rich Morin schrieb:
...
> img_name is the primary key for the table, so using SQL to find a page's
> neighbors by sort order should be relatively inexpensive.
...

I now found out, that there are plans for a completely different
solution (see [[s:en:User:Tim_Starling/ScanSet_PNG_demo]]), but thank
you very much for the answer.

Jofi


subject:
[WikiEN-l] "Fatally Flawed" -- Internal
 Britannica	ReviewTackles Nature Methods

body:
charles matthews wrote:
> "Stephen Bain" wrote
>
>
>>I'm sure they have real concerns, and I'm also sure that there are
>>probably more errors in WP than in EB. The point is that WP can fix
>>its errors far more quickly than traditional encyclopaedias, and we
>>should use this opportunity to show that.
>
>
> It would be cool to manoeuvre EB into fact-checking our articles.  With
> enough EBs, any error is shallow, to coin a phrase.
>

Hrm...

How about a bounty system for errors? Provided you can back up your
claim, you get some reward...

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 558 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060324/f7b66729/attachment.pgp


body:
geni wrote:
> On 3/23/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>geni wrote:
>>
>>>On 3/22/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 04:52:09 +1100, you wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Britannica must be struggling. I recently got a letter offering me a free
>>>>>Britannica CD-ROM (basic edition) if I subscribed. I don't think that is a
>>>>>good sign.
>>>>
>>>>I thought that was a pretty old offer?  I seem to recall something
>>>>similar at least five years back.  Could be wrong, of course.
>>>>
>>>>I think these days anybody selling access to information is
>>>>struggling.  Too much of it is free.
>>>
>>>
>>>Journals appear to be doing ok.
>>>
>>
>>And they're not always accurate either, *despite* the peer-review
>>process. Does anyone remember the name of the nanotech researcher who
>>used the same set of results over and over and over again, for about a
>>dozen experiments that he'd supposedly done? I believe that /Nature/ was
>>involved in that one...
>>
>
>
> I know the case but outright fraud is pretty uncommon. It's when you
> have an orgin paper with a claimed yield and a note saying that the
> product was extracted by HPLC you get worried.
>

Wow, people still use that?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 558 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060324/87eb9d68/attachment.pgp


from_name: Arwel Parry

subject: [WikiEN-l] Radio Wales interview as ogg

body:
In message <4422EFAB.30602.235B06AE at dan.tobias.name>, Daniel R. Tobias
<dan-ahDawszMne97tPAFqOLdPg at public.gmane.org> writes
>On 23 Mar 2006 at 1:16, "David Gerard"
><dgerard-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>> For those who missed it, I've put my segment up:
>>
>> http://static.rocknerd.org/david/radiowales-q0-mono.ogg
>>
>> Ogg Vorbis, 2,311,827 bytes.
>
>The program mistakenly refers to "Wikipedia.com"; it's actually a
>noncommercial dot-org.

Yes, but it's so commonly done that it redirects to the dot-org anyway.

--
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/


from_name: Rudy Koot

subject: [WikiEN-l] ROUGE ADNMIN - the game

body:
Ilya N. wrote:
> That gives me an idea -- wikiLISP
>
> like Wikipedia, but the content is lisp
>
> with a tab saying 'compile now' which compiles the current code and
> downloads to you an .exe
>
> problems? Of course. But who cares?

Try http://en.literateprograms.org/LiteratePrograms:Welcome.

Ruud


from_name: Birgitte Arco

body:
> Thus the article about Wikisource in Wikipedia
> should follow Wikipedia
> rules about articles in its principal namespace.  In
> that context
> Wikisource is no different than someone whose
> biography appears in
> Wikipedia.
>
> Eclecticology
>
>

Just to be clear here.  This is not about sister
project articles but rather the ~3-6 words that
accompany the logos at the bottom of the Main Page and
various other community pages.

I agree Wikipedia articles about sister projects in
the article namespace should follow normal rules for
any such article.

Birgitte SB

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


body:
On 24 Mar 2006, at 00:46, Jesse W wrote:
>>
>> No, we have just put up signs saying "dirt".
> Er, no.  If you read this whole thread, we still have about 15,000
> signs to put up, and according to Mark Wagner, a lot of the signs are
> not correct, which is what I assume Ilmari Karonen meant about the
> dirt
> under the carpet.  Getting good enough signs put up is exactly the
> problem we are working on right now.  Whether we have fair use images
> or not is a whole other issue.  Don't mix it in here, please.

We have several problems:

1. 15000 untagged images
2. maybe 70000 incorrectly tagged images
3. perhaps 200000 non free images

This is of course a clear improvement on having 150000 untagged images,
but does not remove the need to delete them. Which was the point of
tagging in the first place (a bit roundabout - would have been less
work to delete before tagging, but hey Jimbo wanted to know how much
there was and it was only supposed to take a few weeks, not a year).

Justinc


body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 3/23/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
>
>>>And what happens if the next edit merges some content back in from the
>>>reverted text?
>>
>>This case falls under "not perfect but as close as can be".  It's
>>essentially the same problem as someone pasting content from another
>>article, or from another source entirely.  Even your diff-based scheme,
>>while nifty indeed, doesn't solve that.  In general, nothing can.
>
> Well actually it does... because I proposed only classifying articles
> which are completely disconnected from the main sub-graph as
> non-contributors.  The revert+remerge will either end up in the
> entropy flow shortest path (if the removed text is smaller than the
> preserved text), or as a little stub hanging off the main history flow
> pathway should the diff to the reverted version be smaller.

Sorry, I meant that your solution _only_ handles the case where the
pasted-in content comes from a previously reverted version of the same
article.  It doesn't handle the (probably even more common) similar
cases where the content comes from another article or from an off-wiki
source.

So both of our methods will miss some contributors.  Yours will miss
slightly less than mine, at a cost of significantly more processing.
But neither is perfect, and no automatic method _can_ be perfect in this
regard, unless perhaps we were to somehow extend your entropy flow
analysis to the entire whole of human expression, including spoken word
and other ephemera.

"Who first came up with this?" is a Hard Problem(TM).

--
Ilmari Karonen


from_name: ! Chris Sherlock

subject: [Foundation-l] Ta bu shi da yu is getting married

body:
>
> Congratulations!
>
> (What's her edit count?)
>
> --
> Ausir
> Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia
> http://pl.wikipedia.org

Zero :-) she barely knows about Wikipedia except what I have told her!
Actually, I think she thinks it's a little wierd I spend so much time on the
site.

I did once add a new number to Wikipedia that she made up in a fit of
silliness: [[Quadribblas]]. This, needless to say, is now deleted.

TBSDY


body:
>
> Congratulations!
>

> (What's her edit count?)
>
> --
> Ausir
> Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia
> http://pl.wikipedia.org

Zero :-) she barely knows about Wikipedia except what I have told her!
Actually, I think she thinks it's a little wierd I spend so much time on the
site.

I did once add a new number to Wikipedia that she made up in a fit of
silliness: [[Quadribblas]]. This, needless to say, is now deleted.

TBSDY


body:
Mathias Schindler wrote:

>On 3/22/06, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Below is a letter that Britannica sent out today to some of its
>>customers, in response to the December Nature article comparing the
>>accuracy of articles in Wikipedia and Britannica.  A more detailed
>>review of the Nature study, including responses to each alleged error
>>and omission, is linked from the front page of www.eb.com.
>>
>>
>Those of you who are interested in the topic should come to
>#wikipedia-britannica on Freenode IRC.
>
>We might be able to form an response to this which could be productive.
>
>
Is a response necessary?  EB's response to the article is like so much
spin, and I'm inclined to feel sorry for them.  Being drawn into a flame
war with them would be unseemly.  The tone of their study seemed more
focussed on defending their credibility, and they have a right to do that.

Our best position is to acknowledge the errors in Wikipedia that were
identified by Nature, and to point out that we have worked to correct
them.  We needn't mention EB at all. We can hope that similar studies in
the future will be helpful in discover further errors for us to
correct.  Admitting errors impresses the reading public more than
defending them..  We need to remember that we are the ones arguing from
a position of strength.

Ec


body:
Jesse W wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2006, at 11:04 AM, Mark Wagner wrote:
>>On 3/22/06, Jesse W <jessw at netwood.net> wrote:
>>>It's also important to note that 95% of the images on the english
>>>wikipedia do have tags (although many may be wrong, it's true).
>>
>>I haven't checked already-tagged images, but new uploads (based on the
>>data at
>>http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-March/041534.html)
>>have at least a 40% error rate for tagging.
>
> OK.  That is an issue.

Indeed.  So the house is almost clean now.  It's only the underside of
the carpet that's dirty.  :-(

--
Ilmari Karonen


body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 3/22/06, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>*  Rearranging, reediting, and excerpting Britannica articles. Several
>>of the "articles" Nature sent its outside reviewers were only sections of,
>>or excerpts from Britannica entries. Some were cut and pasted together from
>>more than one Britannica article. As a result, Britannica's coverage of
>>certain subjects was represented in the study by texts that our editors
>>never created, approved or even saw.
>>
>>
>That seems like a lot of hot air over a small issue. Claiming that
>their editors "never created, approved or even saw" the particular
>compilation is really piling on strong words to make an impact.
>Whereas what they're actually denying is much weaker. Kind of like "I
>did *not* have sexual relations with that woman..."
>
Sexual relations between WP and Dame Britannica??  What would the
children look like? :-)

>>Whatever may have prompted Nature to do such careless and sloppy research,
>>it's now time for them to uphold their commitment to good science and
>>retract the study immediately. We have urged them strongly to do so.
>>
>>
>Uh, a commitment to good science would be publishing the data and
>their method so that people can attempt to reproduce it. I tend to
>agree that Nature's method was optimistic. Surely more than one
>reviewer for each article shoul have been appointed...even better
>would have been an open forum where many experts could pick through
>each article and argue amongst themselves.
>
Yes, but peer review has its problems, and that whole process may need
to become more wiki-like.

>>We have prepared a detailed report that describes Britannica's thorough
>>(7,000 words) analysis of the Nature study. I invite you to download it from
>>our Web site at www.eb.com.
>>
>>
>A lot of it seems to be "We reject this criticism. We have asked our
>adviser, and he says we're right." Not exactly convincing stuff.
>Particularly when they complain that the original study failed to cite
>sources - and with few exceptions, the EB rebuttal doesn't either.
>
>Example: "Britannica response: We do not accept these criticisms
>(which are really just one criticism, not two). We have published a
>revision of this article that retains the emphasis on supersaturation
>rather than the transitional stage of saturation."
>
I didn't read their response in great detail, but did anyone find even a
single criticism that EB accepted

>I also sort of feel that as an attempted model of good science or
>whatever, EB should not be attacking the entire Nature study as
>totally "without merit".
>
I think EB is in deep trouble, and the result is likely to be the
eventual collapse of this 18th cetury  institution.  That's sad.

Ec


body:
Steve Summit wrote:

>MacGyverMagic wrote:
>
>
>>"internet database anyone, without specific qualifications can edit"
>>is a jab...
>>
>>
>Notice how they carefully don't refer to WP as an "encyclopedia"
>at all.
>
>
>>I'm having a hard time with the idea of sending them a "nice" message.
>>
>>
>But that's the point.  The nastier someone is, the more
>devastating it can be to be nice in return.
>
Exactly!!!!

Ec


body:
geni wrote:

>On 3/22/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 04:52:09 +1100, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Britannica must be struggling. I recently got a letter offering me a free
>>>Britannica CD-ROM (basic edition) if I subscribed. I don't think that is a
>>>good sign.
>>>
>>>
>>I thought that was a pretty old offer?  I seem to recall something
>>similar at least five years back.  Could be wrong, of course.
>>
>>I think these days anybody selling access to information is
>>struggling.  Too much of it is free.
>>Guy (JzG)
>>
>>
>Journals appear to be doing ok.
>
Mostly because they deal in specialized niches.

Ec


from_name: oscar

subject: [Foundation-l] Refusal to talk on nl.wikipedia

body:
On 3/24/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/24/06, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> > Muijz refuses to talk with 3 negotiators between me and him who had
> > proposed to help solve the differences. Muijz refused to co-operate. I
> > want to co-operate. Ugly thing is Muijz refused. But the negotiators
> > punish me by hunting me on nl.wikipedia. The world turned around. Muijz
> > refuses, I co-operate, I get punished for it. I would desperately like
> > to see an arbcom on nl:
>
> Is there any reason there isn't an arbcom on nl? Was the idea
> discussed and rejected, or is there just not enough interest in having
> one yet?
>
> Angela.

there is a committee on nl working on this at the moment fyi
it has high priority.

oscar


body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 04:52:09 +1100, you wrote:
>
>
>>Britannica must be struggling. I recently got a letter offering me a free
>>Britannica CD-ROM (basic edition) if I subscribed. I don't think that is a
>>good sign.
>>
>>
>I thought that was a pretty old offer?  I seem to recall something
>similar at least five years back.  Could be wrong, of course.
>
>I think these days anybody selling access to information is
>struggling.  Too much of it is free.
>
Yes, in many ways.  And we want even more of it to be free.  At the same
time others have gambled with building proprietary databases, and are
looking desparate to achieve cost recovery.  By and large the economics
of the internet includes a lot of very serious unanswered questions.

Ec


from_name: Jama Poulsen

subject: [Wikitech-l] Hierarchical navigation bar?

body:
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 10:05:57AM +0100, Birger wrote:
> Does anyone know whether it is possible to implement a hierarchical
> navigation bar in Mediawiki like e.g.:
>
> * CASES
> ** BUSINESSCASES-URL | BUSINESSCASES
> *** BCASE1-URL | CASE1
> *** BCASE2-URL | CASE2
> ** TECHNICALCASES-URL | TECHNICALCASES
> *** TCASE1-URL | CASE1
> *** TCASE2-URL | CASE2

I think it would be easiest to just edit the skin files (eg.
/wiki/skins/MonoBook.php) with some extra CSS and/or JS that implements
such a structure.

Doing this dynamically (from the Wiki text) isn't so easy in the MW
interface.

Jama Poulsen


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] That other encyclopedia

body:
Seen this?

http://store.britannica.com/jump.jsp?itemID=114&itemType=CATEGORY&iMainCat=4&iSubCat=114&sort=1&dpid=14

You can get the full Britannica DVD for US$25!

At that sort of price, I'm tempted to get one myself, not least to say
to journalists that I'm not only a fan but I bought a copy ...

And they're clearing this at US$20:

http://store.britannica.com/shopping/product/detailmain.jsp?itemID=247&itemType=PRODUCT&iProductID=247

Anyone with dreams of a printed Wikipedia 1.0 should look at this and
think how we can get there.

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] 2 blocks on nl

body:
after a fight over articles moving onto user talk pages and finally irc,
muijz and waerth have been blocked this night by galwaygirl "they are both
blocked until they work out a solution between themselves", for one week, on
nl.wikipedia.
several attempts at mediation had failed before this measure was taken, the
last one on irc, in which it became clear that no peace would be agreed
upon: both kept on provoking the other.

oscar


subject: [Foundation-l] 2 blocks on nl


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Year articles - en: versus de:

body:
David Gerard-2 wrote:
>
> An interesting point that came up in conversation with presroi on IRC.
> Compare:
>
>     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974
>     http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974
>
> Anyone interested in writing up our year articles as decent history
> articles, as well as the lists of stuff?
>

You will note that they have removed the lists of births and deaths to
separate articles.

What are the odds that if anybody tried this on :en: the resulting articles
would be on AFD in a heartbeat as "listcruft"?
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Year-articles---en%3A-versus-de%3A-t1331561.html#a3569128
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


from_name: - Essjay -

body:
I believe that the issue of concern has been confused: We're not worried
about the articles, we're worried about the slogans that are used on the
various main pages. Either Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia" or it is
not; it's not the place of Wikiquote to decide on a new tagline, any more
than it is appropriate for Wikiquote to change the Wikipedia logo to another
one. By the same token, it is not the place of Wikipedia to decide if
Wikisource is "the free library" or not; whatever is the official slogan of
Wikisource is what needs to be put in the little box on the main page that
links to all the other projects.

Essjay

On 3/24/06, Birgitte Arco <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Thus the article about Wikisource in Wikipedia
> > should follow Wikipedia
> > rules about articles in its principal namespace.  In
> > that context
> > Wikisource is no different than someone whose
> > biography appears in
> > Wikipedia.
> >
> > Eclecticology
> >
> >
>
> Just to be clear here.  This is not about sister
> project articles but rather the ~3-6 words that
> accompany the logos at the bottom of the Main Page and
> various other community pages.
>
> I agree Wikipedia articles about sister projects in
> the article namespace should follow normal rules for
> any such article.
>
> Birgitte SB
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Essjay
-----
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org/


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [WikiEN-l] That other encyclopedia

body:
--- David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Seen this?
>
>
http://store.britannica.com/jump.jsp?itemID=114&itemType=CATEGORY&iMainCat=4&iSubCat=114&sort=1&dpid=14
>
> You can get the full Britannica DVD for US$25!
>
> At that sort of price, I'm tempted to get one myself, not least to say
> to journalists that I'm not only a fan but I bought a copy ...
>
> And they're clearing this at US$20:
>
>
http://store.britannica.com/shopping/product/detailmain.jsp?itemID=247&itemType=PRODUCT&iProductID=247
>
> Anyone with dreams of a printed Wikipedia 1.0 should look at this and
> think how we can get there.

How they can continue to improve their product and make a profit with those prices is a bit
concerning. I bought last year's Deluxe Reference Edition for $89 and thought that was a good
price. But now it seems that price has dropped at least twice. Even more worrisome is that this
year's regular price is even lower than what they say on that page was last year?s regular price.
Hopefully this is just a special and not a sign that EB is becoming desperate in the face of
Encarta and the growing use of the Internet as people's first stop for reference information.

BTW, I a bit disappointed in what I got ; all this time we?ve been putting Britannica on some kind
of pedestal and yet almost all the articles I?ve looked at were stubs whose only value to me would
be to help improve lead sections in our articles. And most of those had corresponding Wikipedia
articles that were longer, often much longer. Length and size are not everything (accuracy for one
is also very important), but I was expecting more meat for something I pay for. Especially when
the purpose of buying was to make sure corresponding Wikipedia articles cover all the same points.
Of course, a select few of their articles are famously large and detailed, but those seem to be
the exception and stubs seem to be the rule.

Don't take my word for it ; buy the DVD and see for yourself. It certainly is worth the money now
and something almost all of us can afford. You should also consider buying the Concise edition -
it is great reference to check against to make sure lead sections cover the most vital points of a
topic. I've found that EB?s introductory sections in their regular articles are not a good model
for our lead sections.

-- mav

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


from_name: Walter van Kalken

body:
Muijz refuses to talk with 3 negotiators between me and him who had
proposed to help solve the differences. Muijz refused to co-operate. I
want to co-operate. Ugly thing is Muijz refused. But the negotiators
punish me by hunting me on nl.wikipedia. The world turned around. Muijz
refuses, I co-operate, I get punished for it. I would desperately like
to see an arbcom on nl:

Waerth/Walter


body:
Angela wrote:

>On 3/24/06, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Muijz refuses to talk with 3 negotiators between me and him who had
>>proposed to help solve the differences. Muijz refused to co-operate. I
>>want to co-operate. Ugly thing is Muijz refused. But the negotiators
>>punish me by hunting me on nl.wikipedia. The world turned around. Muijz
>>refuses, I co-operate, I get punished for it. I would desperately like
>>to see an arbcom on nl:
>>
>>
>
>Is there any reason there isn't an arbcom on nl? Was the idea
>discussed and rejected, or is there just not enough interest in having
>one yet?
>
>Angela.
>
>
There is a small group of people continually against it. and they shout
loudest.

Waerth/Walter


subject: [WikiEN-l] A Solution to the Image Problem

body:
Mark Gallagher wrote:

>We need to explain to him *why* he can't have his
>picture; "because it hasn't got the right tag" just doesn't cut it.
>
>When we say "that's policy", what we're *really* saying is "because I
>and a few other people said so".  Learning the *reason* why we do
>things, so that a) we can do them properly, and b) we can explain them
>to others, is vital.
>
That's a very important point.  Simply saying, "because it's policy"
gets people to dig in their heels.  Many of these are young guys who are
then reminded of mom or dad telling them to clean their rooms or mow the
lawn.  They are testing their independance all the way.

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] Waerth's stewardship

body:
daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:

>At the request of Oscar from the Netherlands wikipedia, I have temporarily
>removed Waerth's status as a Steward, pending the resolution of his conflict
>with the nl.wikipedia community. I do this with a heavy heart, and recognize
>that something like this has never been done before, however, it became
>necessary in order to thwart Waerth's threats to override his own block on  nl.wiki.
>
>I would be grateful to receive the comments and suggestions of other
>stewards on this matter, especially because the circumstances are  unprecedented.
>
>Please let's not turn this into a flame fest, but rather a productive
>discussion of what policy should be.
>
>
>
Yes there is a conflict between Muijz and me.
Here are the bulletpoints.

*Muijz refuses negotiations ... I do not, I welcomed them.
*When asked on IRC: I give in on multiple points in order to get peace
**Deletion of page:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#Waerths_first_concession
**Deletion of Mousetrap on talkpage:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#2e_concessie_van_Waerth_nog_stteds_geen_van_Muijz
**http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#2e_concessie_van_Waerth_nog_stteds_geen_van_Muijz
**http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#Waerth_geeft_aan_Muijz_al_een_tijdlang_te_mijden

*Muijz never was willing to give in on any point at all. Everytime when
asked something bij the negotiators he was either silent or didn't
answer the question
**http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#Galwaygirl_vraagt_aan_Muijz_of_hij_het_conflict_door_wil_laten_gaan
**http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#Muijz_weigert_medewerking_gaat_alleen_in_op_slechtheid_van_waerth
**http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#Wederom_vraag_aan_Muijz.2C_wederom_geen_antwoord
**http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#Muijz_weigert_wederom_medewerking

*I offered my apologies Muijz still didn't react!
**http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#Excuses_van_Waerth

*I have done all I could to solve this matter. I give answers to the
negotiators. I co-operate. I also said I was willing to stop the fight.
Muijz refused. I even said lets burry the hatchet
**http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#Waerth_begraaft_de_strijbijl
*Muijz never wanted to.

Yet I am being blocked for a week a now!! Together with Muijz and the
reason is falsely that I am unwilling to co-operate. From the beginning
of this year there has been a witchhunt against me with as the purpose
getting me to leave nl.wikipedia. Teasing me off. Seems people have
succeeded now.

Waerth/Walter


subject: [Foundation-l] Waerth's stewardship


subject: [WikiEN-l] Chatroom libel ruling

body:
slimvirgin at gmail.com wrote:

>Interesting ruling from the High Court in England, which could have
>implications for our talk  pages.
>http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1737001,00.html
>
>
What makes this case less important is that the defendant failed to
defend the case, and the result was in effect a default judgement.

Ec


from_name: Keith D. Tyler

subject: [WikiEN-l] Original research

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 3/24/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
>> If reliable sources can't be cited, does that make the information
>> original research?  I mean, I can document periods of my life citing my
>
> Depends what "can't" means. Information that has been published, but
> for which you do not have access to the source, is not original
> research.
>
>> website and other online sources, but those aren't reliable, are they?
>> Therefore I'm creating original research, aren't I?
>
> Arguably yes, but that's more of a collateral damage case than what
> WP:NOR is really trying to prevent. The information would more likely
> be removed for violating WP:V.
>
> (as I understand it)
>

I have a hard time with the rigidity of NOR. It seems to me that the application
of the current form of NOR is over-paranoid, and misguided, apparently from some
fear of having to back up information. Print or other publication does not imbue
information with validity. Limiting WP sources to published sources has some
serious implication to the goal of being free and open and cataloging all human
knowledge. It presumes that all worthwhile information is published (and
likewise infers that all published information is worthwhile).

To me, "original research" is when I perform an investigative task involving the
scientific or statistical methods to get information that has not been
determined before.

Here's some examples.

1. I drive up to Seattle, and stand outside Boeing Field, and count the number
of planes that fly in and out over the period of a day.

2. I call Boeing Field on the phone and ask them how many planes fly in and out
every day.

3. I find a website, newspaper article, or book about Boeing Field and find the
number.

To me, 1 is clearly OR, and 2 is not. And between 2 and 3, 2 is preferable
because it is assuredly a) a primary source and b) current, which isn't at all
assured with 3.

For some reason, though, contacting an authoritative source is OR, but finding a
book from an authoritative source is not.

KT

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


subject: [Foundation-l] Waerth's stewardship

body:
Walter van Kalken wrote:

>daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
>>At the request of Oscar from the Netherlands wikipedia, I have temporarily
>>removed Waerth's status as a Steward, pending the resolution of his conflict
>>with the nl.wikipedia community. I do this with a heavy heart, and recognize
>>that something like this has never been done before, however, it became
>>necessary in order to thwart Waerth's threats to override his own block on  nl.wiki.
>>
>>I would be grateful to receive the comments and suggestions of other
>>stewards on this matter, especially because the circumstances are  unprecedented.
>>
>>Please let's not turn this into a flame fest, but rather a productive
>>discussion of what policy should be.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Yes there is a conflict between Muijz and me.
>Here are the bulletpoints.
>
>*Muijz refuses negotiations ... I do not, I welcomed them.
>*When asked on IRC: I give in on multiple points in order to get peace
>**Deletion of page:
>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#Waerths_first_concession
>**Deletion of Mousetrap on talkpage:
>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#2e_concessie_van_Waerth_nog_stteds_geen_van_Muijz
>**http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#2e_concessie_van_Waerth_nog_stteds_geen_van_Muijz
>**http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#Waerth_geeft_aan_Muijz_al_een_tijdlang_te_mijden
>
>*Muijz never was willing to give in on any point at all. Everytime when
>asked something bij the negotiators he was either silent or didn't
>answer the question
>**http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#Galwaygirl_vraagt_aan_Muijz_of_hij_het_conflict_door_wil_laten_gaan
>**http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#Muijz_weigert_medewerking_gaat_alleen_in_op_slechtheid_van_waerth
>**http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#Wederom_vraag_aan_Muijz.2C_wederom_geen_antwoord
>**http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#Muijz_weigert_wederom_medewerking
>
>*I offered my apologies Muijz still didn't react!
>**http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#Excuses_van_Waerth
>
>*I have done all I could to solve this matter. I give answers to the
>negotiators. I co-operate. I also said I was willing to stop the fight.
>Muijz refused. I even said lets burry the hatchet
>**http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Waerth/IRC_log#Waerth_begraaft_de_strijbijl
>*Muijz never wanted to.
>
>Yet I am being blocked for a week a now!! Together with Muijz and the
>reason is falsely that I am unwilling to co-operate. From the beginning
>of this year there has been a witchhunt against me with as the purpose
>getting me to leave nl.wikipedia. Teasing me off. Seems people have
>succeeded now.
>
>
>
Since thing were removed from wikipedia, I placed it over here. This is
weird the only evidence I have and I am not allowed to use it as
evidence against an illegal block.

Walter/Waerth


subject: [Foundation-l] Waerth's stewardship


body:
Justin Cormack wrote:
> On 24 Mar 2006, at 14:01, Matt R wrote:
>> I don't think that's a good idea. I've uploaded numerous images after
>> negotiating a free license with the copyright holder, for which
>> there is no
>> supporting documentation other than my assertion (barring private
>> emails).
>>
  > You are supposed to forward such emails to the foundation - there is
> a special
> email address for this. You dont have to post them on the wiki.
>
> Verifiability is vital.
>
> Justinc

"Supposed to"? Well, it's not in the [[Wikipedia:Image use policy|policy]]. I
dunno where this has been communicated, but not on the policy page.

I know I've added such photos where I've received affirmation of free use a
number of times, and done just what Matt R. did.

Kdt


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 3/24/06, KWH <k.w.harris at gmail.com> wrote:
> The decision is quite simply: "if I decide to take this article and
> edit it, and there is an image included in the previous version, do I
> want to include it in my version? Do I feel comfortable with the
> source and fair use justification? Would I feel better if I removed or
> replaced it, and why?" Life's much easier when you consider it in that
> light.

Making Wikipedia editors for the entire contents of any article they
edit would be a major, unwelcome change IMHO. Not just on the fair use
side, but even implying that editors have necessarily read, let alone
approved an entire article is unreasonable, when they may just be
adding an interwiki link or fixing some spelling, for example.

Steve


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
On 3/23/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> Fair enough.  Is it required that the original uploader provide the
> fair use rationale, or can someone else?  If we require the original
> uploader, that might be a problem.  If you're not the original
> uploader, but provide a rationale, are you thereby assuming
> responsibility for a copyright lawsuit?
>
> -Matt
No, because if you add a proper rationale there won't be a lawsuit.

Mgm


body:
On 3/24/06, KWH <k.w.harris at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/23/06, "Matt Brown" <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/23/06, jkelly at fas.harvard.edu <jkelly at fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > >   I think that this is largely true.  My suggestion was meant to be more
> > > conservative, in that it would only expedite deletion of media where we are
> > > saying "This is fair use", and it is being used in an article, but we have no
> > > rationale whatsoever.
> >
> > Fair enough.  Is it required that the original uploader provide the
> > fair use rationale, or can someone else?  If we require the original
> > uploader, that might be a problem.  If you're not the original
> > uploader, but provide a rationale, are you thereby assuming
> > responsibility for a copyright lawsuit?
> >
> > -Matt
>
> I've done a bit of thinking on this, and I believe that whoever
> includes the image tag in the article would be responsible for
> preparing a work containing the fair use material. If User A uploads
> the image, B puts it in the article, and then C breezes by and puts a
> fair use justification, then B would probably be responsible; but if D
> comes by and corrects a typo in the article and leaves the image tag
> in, then D could become responsible.
>
> But this is all hopelessly speculative. My opinion is that the purpose
> that the source, tag, and fair use justification serve is allowing
> downstream consumers of the image database (future editors and also
> those who download the wikipedia database to build fork sites) to make
> a solid determination of whether they want to include the image in
> their work. It's a form of "rights clearance" database.
>
> Legal arguments about the fair use rationale are hopeless. Any lawyer
> qualified to give advice on the matter would not give it for free on
> the Internet without that famous disclaimer, "this does not constitute
> legal advice, contact a licensed professional...", q.v.
> [[Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer]]. I think my own opinion is pretty good
> just as an average US citizen with an interest in the law, but I won't
> bore anyone with it unless upon request. Therefore the bottom line is
> anyone who's concerned about themselves should talk to a lawyer about
> their specific case.
>
> The decision is quite simply: "if I decide to take this article and
> edit it, and there is an image included in the previous version, do I
> want to include it in my version? Do I feel comfortable with the
> source and fair use justification? Would I feel better if I removed or
> replaced it, and why?" Life's much easier when you consider it in that
> light.
>
> [[User:Kwh]]
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
You can't expect someone to take responsibility for an picture someone
else put in an article. Too many people know too little about
copyright law or are just completely ignorant.

I think we should have some project that tags images as they come in
(or throws them out) to stop this from getting out of hand and to make
sure valid images aren't deleted just because the original uploader
forgot to tag it. All of them should get reviewed by at least 3 people
before being thrown out. Deleting something is very easy, a similar
effort should be made to tag an image properly.

Mgm


from_name: Stephen Bain

body:
On 3/24/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> An interesting point that came up in conversation with presroi on IRC. Compare:
>
>     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974
>     http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974
>
> Anyone interested in writing up our year articles as decent history
> articles, as well as the lists of stuff?

We already have much of that content, in the various articles about
years by topic, for example [[1974 in Australia]] and [[1974 in
music]]. I do like the yearbook type format though, perhaps the list
of events can go to something like [[List of events in 1974]], and the
[[1974]] page can be a summary-type thing?

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Domas Mituzas

body:
Magnus,

> history. I could probably demonstrate by requesting the history of GWB
> with limit=100000 a few dozen times simultanously, but I won't for
> obvious reasons.

Instead of writing additional feature for that you could just
restrict limit on page history :)

> Could you do me a favor? Run a SELECT DISTINCT on all authors of GWB
> manually and take the time. This should represent the worst-case
> scenario. I'm curious about how long that takes.

Worst case scenario is that revision would have to be loaded into
memory, instead of safe haven on our slow i/o :) That would mean that
we'd need twice more memory for all DB servers.

> There are ways to limit this. AFAIK, it is not (strictly) necessary to
> list IPs in the author list, so one could add "WHERE rev_user_id>0" to
> the query. That should take care of the anon vandals, which in the
> case
> of GWB should be quite a percentage.

Not anymore. On the other hand, that'd require scanning some index
anyway, :)

> It might also be possible to put an absolute limit into the query. But
> that is a question the the legal guys.
Would not help.

> Brion, please note that this is not about my latest cute little
> script.
> AFAIK, there is currently *no* way to publish the GWB article as
> demanded by the GFDL short of downloading the *entire* en.wikipedia
> including all old revisions, installing MediaWiki, importing the whole
> thing and then run the query locally. Not exactly what I'd call
> user-friendly...

Maybe we should write author xml streams during backup process, but
we should not solve this issue by running it all on our main db servers.

Domas


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Public Library of Science

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> geni wrote:
>>Journals appear to be doing ok.
>>
>
> Mostly because they deal in specialized niches.

This is unrelated to the current thread, but I was at a meeting at the
Public Library of Science the other day and promised them that I would
make an effort to bring their work to the attention of the wider
Wikipedia community.

http://www.plos.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Library_of_Science

All content of the peer-reviewed Plos journals (including PLoS Biology,
PLoS Medicine, PLoS Genetics, etc.) is released under "by-attribution"
(Creative Commons).

Open access to scientific publications is crucial, and I think we should
be aware and supportive of their efforts.  Scientific publishing, and
academic publishing more generally, is due for a revolution... Journals
charge extremely high prices, and the contributors are paid nothing...
this is a core vulnerability.  The contributors contribute because there
is prestige in having a paper accepted... if PLoS (and similar efforts)
are creating freely licensed alternative business models, then the old
business model is doomed.

Barbara Cohen, the executive editor of PLoS, and senior editor of PLoS
Medicine, showed me this page:

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/015/2004/00000025/F0020008/art00004

Take a couple of minutes to look at it, and enjoy the sad irony... an
academic paper in a traditional journal on the topic of "Impediments to
promoting access to global knowledge in sub-Saharan Africa" costs $25 to
access!

When you see that, then you understand the importance of the work of PLoS.

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


from_name: Mathias Schindler

subject:
[WikiEN-l] "Fatally Flawed" -- Internal Britannica Review
	Tackles Nature Methods

body:
On 3/24/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> Is a response necessary?

only if journalists start emailing us about this. And still, there is
no need for a response, as Britannica is showing in an astonishing
way:

"Britannica refused comment at the time and did formally respond until
this week, more than three months later.

Britannica spokesman Tom Panelas declined comment Thursday beyond the
article on its Web site."

http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/ap/2006/03/23/ap2618333.html

> Our best position is to acknowledge the errors in Wikipedia that were
> identified by Nature, and to point out that we have worked to correct
> them.

that is actually being done:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications_subcommittees/Press/2006/03/22_Britanica_PR


body:
On 3/24/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Our best position is to acknowledge the errors in Wikipedia that were
> identified by Nature, and to point out that we have worked to correct
> them.  We needn't mention EB at all. We can hope that similar studies in
> the future will be helpful in discover further errors for us to
> correct.  Admitting errors impresses the reading public more than
> defending them..  We need to remember that we are the ones arguing from
> a position of strength.

This is probably the best approach to take, to really differentiate
us. EB, in response to a study of their errors, came out by attacking
the study and the journal that sponsored it. We should make sure our
response is praise for the journal - quite honestly, we *love* getting
someone to fact-check for us, and pointing out our inaccuracies.
Whereas EB will suffer more and more with every similar study, we can
only stand to benefit.

Steve


body:
On 3/24/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> I didn't read their response in great detail, but did anyone find even a
> single criticism that EB accepted

I saw at least one "potayto/potahto" quasi-acceptance. And I vaguely
recall seeing a "this article was under review at the time, and is now
completely different", which kind of almost indicates a vague
acceptance that maybe it wasn't totally perfect at the time...kind of.
Maybe.

Steve


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 03:03:49 -0800 (PST), you wrote:

>What are the odds that if anybody tried this on :en: the resulting articles
>would be on AFD in a heartbeat as "listcruft"?

To imbue that comment with a seriousness which was probably not meant:
very low.  There is substantial encyclopaedic content.

What you *would* probably find is that every year since 199x would be
dominated by "foo Pokemon deck released" with a three paragraph
summary, "foo game released for bar console" with nine paragraphs,
"foo webforum launched" with 28 paragraphs... and somewhere buried at
the bottom in about eight words the fact that the Nobel Prize for
Medicine was awarded to a man who discovered a cure for cancer and the
common cold, over which there would be an edit war regarding the
precise semantics of the words "cure", "common", "cold" and quite
likely "who" ;-)
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Mark Wagner

body:
On 3/24/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> KWH wrote:
> >>Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:13:40 +1100
> >>From: Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au>
> >>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A Solution to the Image Problem
> >>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> >>Message-ID: <44222074.1030207 at student.canberra.edu.au>
> >>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >>
> >>
> >>G'day Mark,
> >>
> >>
> >>>On 3/22/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Can't we just start by asking for a software upgrade that doesn't
> >>>>accept images without a source? Hiding the link also makes uploading
> >>>>harder for regular contributors who don't remember links and use the
> >>>>side bar for easy access and for newbies who do care abou copyrights.
> >>>
> >>>All that will do is force users to provide whatever the software is
> >>>looking for as a "source".  We're seeing this already with copyright
> >>>tags: people are sticking license tags, usually "fair use" and
> >>>"CopyrightedFreeUse" license tags, on images in a desperate attempt to
> >>>keep the images safe from the "no license" patrol.  You can see this
> >>>in the responses to OrphanBot's notifications: many are of the form
> >>>"What license tag should I stick on my image to keep it from being
> >>>deleted?".
> >>
> >>This sort of thing used to irk me terribly, until I stumbled across
> >>something approaching Enlightenment.  If we assume good faith, the
> >>answer is obvious: the user isn't lying in a desperate attempt to
> >>violate copyrights and get us in trouble; he's (it is usually a he)
> >>merely confused and caught up in process fetishism.
> >>
> >>Images aren't deleted because they don't have a tag: they're deleted
> >>because they have no source and their copyright status is unclear, and
> >>we've decided not to take the risk of keeping such images around for no
> >>good purpose.  But if I, or any other person trying to crack down on
> >>copyvios, try to explain the situation to a newbie, we say: "you need to
> >>place a tag on this image".  Is it any *wonder* he gets confused?  What,
> >>will any tag do?  Any source is appropriate, right, even if that source
> >>says "all rights reserved, do not steal our images or we'll steal your
> >>thumbs, and what use will your precious Gameboy be then, eh?"?
> >>
> >>We confuse what the tags mean with the tags themselves.  I have the same
> >>problem with other templates, like the {{testn}} warnings: we aren't
> >>warning people, we're slapping a template on their page
> >>(congratulations!  You're the 100th RC patroller to tag this page this
> >>year!  Has it occurred to you that this talkpage already contains 99
> >>identical boilerplate warnings, and what effect that has on a growing
> >>lad?), and likewise with images.
> >>
> >>
> >>>When trying to solve the image problem, there are some fundamental
> >>>things you need to keep in mind:
> >>>*Joe User doesn't care about "correct"
> >>>*Joe User doesn't care about "copyright"
> >>>*Joe User doesn't care about "source"
> >>>*Joe User doesn't care about "policy"
> >>>All Joe User wants is pictures in his article.
> >>
> >>Bingo.  And he's not being malicious in that; he's being human (or
> >>possibly a magpie).  We need to explain to him *why* he can't have his
> >>picture; "because it hasn't got the right tag" just doesn't cut it.
> >>
> >>When we say "that's policy", what we're *really* saying is "because I
> >>and a few other people said so".  Learning the *reason* why we do
> >>things, so that a) we can do them properly, and b) we can explain them
> >>to others, is vital.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Spot on, but I would add - Joe User /can/ have an image in /his/
> > article.
>
> By "his article" I assume you mean "article on Joe User" - if that's not
> what you meant, please see [[WP:OWN]].

[[WP:OWN]] is exactly what I mean.  The creators of articles,
especially articles on pop culture, tend to feel a proprietary
interest in those articles.  This makes it quite difficult to make
changes that degrade the articles, such as removing images.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


from_name: Angela

body:
On 3/24/06, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> Muijz refuses to talk with 3 negotiators between me and him who had
> proposed to help solve the differences. Muijz refused to co-operate. I
> want to co-operate. Ugly thing is Muijz refused. But the negotiators
> punish me by hunting me on nl.wikipedia. The world turned around. Muijz
> refuses, I co-operate, I get punished for it. I would desperately like
> to see an arbcom on nl:

Is there any reason there isn't an arbcom on nl? Was the idea
discussed and rejected, or is there just not enough interest in having
one yet?

Angela.


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] Soft blocking and hard blocking

body:
Since there's renewed interest in fixing the blocking problems (and
bug 550), I thought I'd draw attention to
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Robchurch/Blocking_Mechanism/Notes
which is a proposal for a fresh blocking mechanism.

I suspect this ties in a lot with the other current thread on this on
wikitech-l, and no doubt the principles are identical or near as
damnit. The precise implementation details are going to differ, but I
expect we can bang our heads together and whack out some code soon
enough.

Rob Church


from_name: michael_irwin at verizon.net

subject:
[Foundation-l] Rodovid.org, family tree wiki,
 wishes to become a wiki project

body:
Robert Scott Horning wrote:

>After that, you should have a legitimate answer or some solid input from
>Wikimedia users in general over if the idea is a good one or not.  Due
>to the nature of this project, widespread input is especially
>recommended.  Mind you, all of the above steps are outlined in the
>official New Project Policy, as approved by the Wikimedia Foundation
>board.  The examples I cite are from successful projects that at least
>have the attention of the board and very substantial community support.
>
>
>

So Wikiversity has received authority to proceed?

http://en.wikiversity.org/

Still reports wiki as nonexistent.

Unless the geneology project wishes to be in limbo for a couple of years
they might better advised to ignore the advertised Foundation "policies".

Has any wikimedia project ever been approved by the Board by following
the advertised policies and procedures?

Do they (the geneology project) have competing projects initiated at
wikicities.com?

Perhaps they could establish a reference book on geneology at wikibooks
or an appropriate learning portal at wikiversity prototype and proceed
while awaiting committee shuffling  and participant selection process to
gain legitimacy by grandfathering.

lazyquasar


from_name: Justin Cormack

body:
On 24 Mar 2006, at 12:12, Steve Bennett wrote:

> On 3/24/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
>> D, who only corrects a typo in an unrelated part of the article,
>> could
>> hardly be expected to know that the fair use claims made implictly
>> by B
>> and explicitly by C are in fact bogus.  Unless, perhaps, the
>> copyright
>> violation was _really_ blatant and obvious; but if one were to argue
>> that, one might as well argue that anyone who read the article
>> without
>> fixing it is also liable.  I doubt either argument would actually
>> fly.
>
> I'm not sure what a "blatant" copyright violation would be. There's
> always the chance that the copyright owner of any image gave
> permission to Wikimedia to use it - an editor who simply edits the
> article cannot know whether that is true or not.

We dont accept "with permission" images, and we dont accept anything
that is not verifiable by someone else. So there would be supporting
documentation somewhere for that case.

Justinc


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Original research

body:
On 3/24/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> Okay, but imagine you have one blog, which describes said blogger doing
> a, b and c.  Is that permissable?  Because if it is, then it's
> permissable to game Wikipedia, to my mind, in that anything documented
> online is fair game.

A blog is allowed to be used as a source in an article about the
blogger (but not anywhere else), so long as the material used is only
about that blogger and not about third parties; is notable; is not
unduly self-aggrandizing; is not contradicted by third-party sources;
and so long as there's no reasonable doubt about the blogger's
identity. And of course, there must be reliable third-party source
material available about that blogger before a Wikipedia entry would
be justified in the first place.

Those restrictions reduce the extent to which someone can game our
policies by sticking material up on their personal website, then
insisting it be used as a source in Wikipedia.

Sarah


from_name: Kirill Lokshin

body:
On 3/24/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/24/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > That's a very important point.  Simply saying, "because it's policy"
> > gets people to dig in their heels.  Many of these are young guys who are
> > then reminded of mom or dad telling them to clean their rooms or mow the
> > lawn.  They are testing their independance all the way.
>
> Maybe just saying "so we don't get sued" would be simpler than saying
> it's policy?

That's a pretty good explanation in cases where we might actually get
sued.  In other cases (e.g. by-permission images, logos on userpages,
and so forth), it really is a matter of project policy rather than any
concrete legal liability on our part.

Kirill Lokshin


from_name: Guettarda

subject: [WikiEN-l] Editor's guides

body:
Is there such a thing as editors' guides to specific areas?

For example, the Trinidad and Tobago article attracts people all the time
who add "new" information which is already contained in some subarticle.
They don't expect the level of depth of Trinidad and Tobago articles that
exist, so they just add something that's "missing", probably unaware of what
exists.

It would be nice if there was some way to add an "editors guide" - something
like "Interested in editing articles related to Trinidad and Tobago?  Browse
our articles on the topic".  Yeah, I realise that the "obvious" answer is
"that's what categories are for", but there're two problems with categories
- one is that they are too opaque (there are too many sub-sub-sub
categories) and another is that the category link at the bottom of the page
is too obscure - it's too far down the page and not eye-catching enough.  I
am thinking of something that could go in a box like the Sister Links box
(or in that box).  Something friendly and eyecatching, something aimed at
capturing new editors and pointing them to the type of page they might have
something to add to - or if nothing else, preventing them (maybe) from
adding trivia when we already have a whole article.

Is there anything like this?  Do other people see it as something
potentially useful?

Ian


from_name: Ilmari Karonen

body:
Jesse W wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2006, at 4:37 PM, Justin Cormack wrote:
>>
>>No, we have just put up signs saying "dirt".
>
> Er, no.  If you read this whole thread, we still have about 15,000
> signs to put up, and according to Mark Wagner, a lot of the signs are
> not correct, which is what I assume Ilmari Karonen meant about the dirt
> under the carpet.

Yes, that's what I meant.  In fact, going with the sign analogy, it
might be more appropriate to say that we have put up signs saying
"clean", slightly under half of which point to dirt.

--
Ilmari Karonen