subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7

body:
> This is a bit radical, but maybe deleting admins in these cases could
> copy the content onto the article talk pages, and tag them so that
> they can be deleted by a bot a couple days later.  This would allow
> everyone to review the decisions, but I'm not sure how much extra
> hassle this would create for deleting admins...

If you're having the article on the talk page for a few days for
review, why not have it on the article page for a few days for review
(ie. PROD it)?


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: David Mestel

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7

body:
>If you're having the article on the talk page for a few days for
>review, why not have it on the article page for a few days for review
>(ie. PROD it)?

Because if it's on the talk page, readers won't come to it through the
search box and think, "Oh, look how stupid this encyclopedia is, they
have an article on a ridiculous subject like that".  Isn't that
basically why we delete articles?

David

On 26/12/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is a bit radical, but maybe deleting admins in these cases could
> > copy the content onto the article talk pages, and tag them so that
> > they can be deleted by a bot a couple days later.  This would allow
> > everyone to review the decisions, but I'm not sure how much extra
> > hassle this would create for deleting admins...
>
> If you're having the article on the talk page for a few days for
> review, why not have it on the article page for a few days for review
> (ie. PROD it)?
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
David


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom results... :-)

body:
On 26/12/06, Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:

> Meanwhile, my best wishes to the Arbitration Committee. To the newly
> chosen especially, but also to the already sitting, who hopefully will
> absorb some renewed vigor from their colleagues. Be thankful that a
> knowledge of English is generally sufficient, and try not to lapse to
> much into Wiki-ish like IAR, CSD, and the like.

Note that the term "industrial quantities of fatally corrosive
blithering stupid" is a technical jargon term on arbcom-l.

;-p

- d.


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7

body:
> Because if it's on the talk page, readers won't come to it through the
> search box and think, "Oh, look how stupid this encyclopedia is, they
> have an article on a ridiculous subject like that".  Isn't that
> basically why we delete articles?

If someone is searching for an article on the subject, they aren't
going to think that, are they?

As for why we delete non-notable articles - it's a controversial
subject. There are plenty of people that think we shouldn't. My main
reason for supporting such deletions are based around consistancy - if
we have an article on one band that's never released anything, we
should have articles on every band that's never released anything,
otherwise we have systematic bias. I don't think we delete them to
stop people reading them and thinking badly of us - if they've found
the article, they are probably interested in the subject.


list: foundation-l

from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

subject: [Foundation-l] Site notice change

body:
Hello,

On December 28 we will be changing the fundraising sitenotice for 24 hours.
The new site notice will be identical to the anonymous donor site notice,
except  that it will say.

"Today your donation will be matched by Virgin United."

Virgin United will be a link to the Virgin United website. There will also
be a small Virgin logo in the sitenotice. A sample will be ready for you
tomorrow morning (Brion time).

Please convey this to the appropriate people.

Danny


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Site notice change


subject:
[Foundation-l] Fwd: wikipedia: "wikiasaria" the p2p way,
	here: participation of the foundation in the new wiki project
	(cspace and yacy based)

body:
On 26/12/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/25/06, the wub <thewub.wiki at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On 25/12/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:

> > > All of the reports about this are incorrect or exaggerated.

> > Except hopefully this one -
> > http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikipedia_founder_Jimmy_Wales_to_start_wiki-based_search_engine
> > :-)

> Yep, I wrote that article!
> I was especially sensitive to errors when I noted Jimmy Wales's blindingly
> yellow notice on his website. What's worse is now we got Angela here saying
> it won't even be called Wikiasari, or am I that lousy of a journalist that I
> misinterpreted that, too?

Hah, UnNews wins again!

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/UnNews:Uncyclopedia_Founder_Plans_Search_Engine_to_Rival_Google

YOU CANNOT FIGHT THE POWER OF WIKIA.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7

body:
>If someone is searching for an article on the subject, they aren't
>going to think that, are they?

*bangs head against wall* Stupid David!  Should have thought of that.

To be honest, I think that one of the main reasons is that articles on
non-notable subjects are usually badly written/unverified...

David

On 26/12/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Because if it's on the talk page, readers won't come to it through the
> > search box and think, "Oh, look how stupid this encyclopedia is, they
> > have an article on a ridiculous subject like that".  Isn't that
> > basically why we delete articles?
>
> If someone is searching for an article on the subject, they aren't
> going to think that, are they?
>
> As for why we delete non-notable articles - it's a controversial
> subject. There are plenty of people that think we shouldn't. My main
> reason for supporting such deletions are based around consistancy - if
> we have an article on one band that's never released anything, we
> should have articles on every band that's never released anything,
> otherwise we have systematic bias. I don't think we delete them to
> stop people reading them and thinking badly of us - if they've found
> the article, they are probably interested in the subject.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
David


from_name: David Strauss

subject: [Foundation-l] Site notice change

body:
I don't know if others would agree, but I'd prefer to link to an
article. It would certainly seem less commercial.

daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On December 28 we will be changing the fundraising sitenotice for 24 hours.
> The new site notice will be identical to the anonymous donor site notice,
> except  that it will say.
>
> "Today your donation will be matched by Virgin United."
>
> Virgin United will be a link to the Virgin United website. There will also
> be a small Virgin logo in the sitenotice. A sample will be ready for you
> tomorrow morning (Brion time).
>
> Please convey this to the appropriate people.
>
> Danny
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061226/eb201c63/attachment.pgp


subject: [Foundation-l] Site notice change

body:
I don't know if others would agree, but I'd prefer to link to an
article. It would certainly seem less commercial.

daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On December 28 we will be changing the fundraising sitenotice for 24 hours.
> The new site notice will be identical to the anonymous donor site notice,
> except  that it will say.
>
> "Today your donation will be matched by Virgin United."
>
> Virgin United will be a link to the Virgin United website. There will also
> be a small Virgin logo in the sitenotice. A sample will be ready for you
> tomorrow morning (Brion time).
>
> Please convey this to the appropriate people.
>
> Danny
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061226/eb201c63/attachment-0001.pgp


subject: [Foundation-l] Site notice change

body:
I don't know if others would agree, but I'd prefer to link to an
article. It would certainly seem less commercial.

daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On December 28 we will be changing the fundraising sitenotice for 24 hours.
> The new site notice will be identical to the anonymous donor site notice,
> except  that it will say.
>
> "Today your donation will be matched by Virgin United."
>
> Virgin United will be a link to the Virgin United website. There will also
> be a small Virgin logo in the sitenotice. A sample will be ready for you
> tomorrow morning (Brion time).
>
> Please convey this to the appropriate people.
>
> Danny
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061226/eb201c63/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Foundation-l] Site notice change

body:
I don't know if others would agree, but I'd prefer to link to an
article. It would certainly seem less commercial.

daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On December 28 we will be changing the fundraising sitenotice for 24 hours.
> The new site notice will be identical to the anonymous donor site notice,
> except  that it will say.
>
> "Today your donation will be matched by Virgin United."
>
> Virgin United will be a link to the Virgin United website. There will also
> be a small Virgin logo in the sitenotice. A sample will be ready for you
> tomorrow morning (Brion time).
>
> Please convey this to the appropriate people.
>
> Danny
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061226/eb201c63/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: Gurch

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7

body:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
> Gurch wrote:
>
>> Though I probably go beyond the boundaries of CSD A7 in cases where,
>> really, I think it merits it, I do try to take the criterion literally
>> as far as possible, and PROD things that contain an assertion of
>> notability even if it isn't an acceptable one.
>>
>
> Please, stop.  No, seriously, stop.  If you're speedying articles that
> don't meet the criteria, stop.

Fair enough, since you asked so nicely. I should emphasize, though, that
many other people will bend the rules of speedy deletions a lot further
than I have done. You may want to have a word with them; they don't all
read this list. Not to mention the people that clear out PRODs, as the
size of their task would increase significantly. Readers, too, should
prepare for a small but not insignificant decline in the average quality
of our articles.

Thomas Dalton wrote:
 >> Sometimes, though, the prod tag gets removed, at which point I have
 >> to make a procedural listing at AfD and reset the five-day countdown
 >> to when the article can go, which does make me wonder if it's really
worth it.
 >
 > Yeah, that is annoying... maybe PRODs should have to go through an
 > extra step to be removed: One person adds a PROD tag, another changes
 > it to a DISPUTED-PROD tag, another can then remove the tag, after
 > which it has to go through AfD to be deleted. Admins can delete
 > DISPUTED-PRODs after the usual 5 days (or maybe 2 days after the
 > dispute is added if it is disputed in the last 2 days of the 5 day
 > period). Basically, this means 2 people have to agree in order for a
 > PROD to be removed (yes, this can be got around with sockpuppets, but
 > there isn't much we can do about that that we don't do already).

It's nice to see new ideas being thrown around, but I'm not sure this is
the way to go. Proposed deletion was deliberately designed to be simple
at a time when AfD was being used for things that didn't merit that much
complexity. Instruction creep, perhaps; I'm not a great fan of that
term, though.


from_name: Kirill Lokshin

subject: [Foundation-l] Site notice change

body:
On 12/26/06, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
> I don't know if others would agree, but I'd prefer to link to an
> article. It would certainly seem less commercial.

I suspect Virgin might not agree. ;-)

Aside from that, of course, is the practical point that this is
Wikimedia-wide, not just Wikipedia-wide.  What article would, say,
Commons link to?  And how about languages that didn't have an article
on Virgin, or had an utterly inadequate one?

--
Kirill Lokshin


subject: [Foundation-l] Site notice change


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Foundation-l] Site notice change

body:
On 12/26/06, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
> I don't know if others would agree, but I'd prefer to link to an
> article. It would certainly seem less commercial.

Geesh if we think putting an article on the main page causes a ton of
vandalism, I can't imagine what putting one in the site notice like
that would do.   Way to thank a donor!


subject: [Foundation-l] Site notice change


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7

body:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
> James Hare wrote:
>
>> We should do what we already do -- speedy delete those that fail to even
>> assert notability, and PROD those that are non-notable despite assertion. If
>> the PROD is removed, then AFD is necessary simply because it makes us look
>> good. Assume good faith across the board.
>
> I've long-advocated just turning CSD A7 into a prod.  Prod's obviously
> working on the ones that are speedy candidates but get prodded instead...
>
> -Jeff

By and large, yes. Were it not for the need to keep complete nonsense
and vandalism out, one could almost do away with speedy deletions
altogether. Of course if that happened, an equally complex set of
guidelines for closing PRODs would quickly be formulated.

I do recall one time that an article was speedy tagged, the speedy tag
was changed to a PROD, the prod was contested, and the resulting AfD was
closed early with a consensus to speedy delete. I suppose it could have
been worse; at least nobody started a DRV...

-Gurch


subject: [Foundation-l] Site notice change

body:
It's not Virgin's choice. If they get to dictate the nature of their
representation, it starts to border on advertising. I think we'll have
better credibility with the community if we link to an article.

Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> On 12/26/06, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
>> I don't know if others would agree, but I'd prefer to link to an
>> article. It would certainly seem less commercial.
>
> I suspect Virgin might not agree. ;-)
>
> Aside from that, of course, is the practical point that this is
> Wikimedia-wide, not just Wikipedia-wide.  What article would, say,
> Commons link to?  And how about languages that didn't have an article
> on Virgin, or had an utterly inadequate one?
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061226/197ec70e/attachment.pgp


subject: [Foundation-l] Site notice change

body:
It's not Virgin's choice. If they get to dictate the nature of their
representation, it starts to border on advertising. I think we'll have
better credibility with the community if we link to an article.

Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> On 12/26/06, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
>> I don't know if others would agree, but I'd prefer to link to an
>> article. It would certainly seem less commercial.
>
> I suspect Virgin might not agree. ;-)
>
> Aside from that, of course, is the practical point that this is
> Wikimedia-wide, not just Wikipedia-wide.  What article would, say,
> Commons link to?  And how about languages that didn't have an article
> on Virgin, or had an utterly inadequate one?
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061226/197ec70e/attachment-0001.pgp


subject: [Foundation-l] Site notice change

body:
It's not Virgin's choice. If they get to dictate the nature of their
representation, it starts to border on advertising. I think we'll have
better credibility with the community if we link to an article.

Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> On 12/26/06, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
>> I don't know if others would agree, but I'd prefer to link to an
>> article. It would certainly seem less commercial.
>
> I suspect Virgin might not agree. ;-)
>
> Aside from that, of course, is the practical point that this is
> Wikimedia-wide, not just Wikipedia-wide.  What article would, say,
> Commons link to?  And how about languages that didn't have an article
> on Virgin, or had an utterly inadequate one?
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061226/197ec70e/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Foundation-l] Site notice change

body:
It's not Virgin's choice. If they get to dictate the nature of their
representation, it starts to border on advertising. I think we'll have
better credibility with the community if we link to an article.

Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> On 12/26/06, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
>> I don't know if others would agree, but I'd prefer to link to an
>> article. It would certainly seem less commercial.
>
> I suspect Virgin might not agree. ;-)
>
> Aside from that, of course, is the practical point that this is
> Wikimedia-wide, not just Wikipedia-wide.  What article would, say,
> Commons link to?  And how about languages that didn't have an article
> on Virgin, or had an utterly inadequate one?
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061226/197ec70e/attachment-0001.pgp>


subject: [Foundation-l] Site notice change

body:
On 12/26/06, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
> It's not Virgin's choice. If they get to dictate the nature of their
> representation, it starts to border on advertising. I think we'll have
> better credibility with the community if we link to an article.

True, and I doubt that they can dictate anything at this point.  I
nevertheless think that it would be rather crass of us to not link to
them if we told them that we would do so when the matching donation
was arranged.  (I have no idea if this was actually the case, though;
presumably Danny would know.)

In any case, there's still the issue of finding something suitable to
link to.  The en: article on the group
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Group) is in pretty poor shape,
and the handful of other languages don't seem to be any better.

--
Kirill Lokshin


subject: [Foundation-l] Site notice change


subject: [Foundation-l] Site notice change

body:
NullC just informed me that we originally promised to link to the
official sites. I agree that we should not renege on that promise.

Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> On 12/26/06, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
>> It's not Virgin's choice. If they get to dictate the nature of their
>> representation, it starts to border on advertising. I think we'll have
>> better credibility with the community if we link to an article.
>
> True, and I doubt that they can dictate anything at this point.  I
> nevertheless think that it would be rather crass of us to not link to
> them if we told them that we would do so when the matching donation
> was arranged.  (I have no idea if this was actually the case, though;
> presumably Danny would know.)
>
> In any case, there's still the issue of finding something suitable to
> link to.  The en: article on the group
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Group) is in pretty poor shape,
> and the handful of other languages don't seem to be any better.
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061226/d7df0384/attachment.pgp


subject: [Foundation-l] Site notice change

body:
NullC just informed me that we originally promised to link to the
official sites. I agree that we should not renege on that promise.

Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> On 12/26/06, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
>> It's not Virgin's choice. If they get to dictate the nature of their
>> representation, it starts to border on advertising. I think we'll have
>> better credibility with the community if we link to an article.
>
> True, and I doubt that they can dictate anything at this point.  I
> nevertheless think that it would be rather crass of us to not link to
> them if we told them that we would do so when the matching donation
> was arranged.  (I have no idea if this was actually the case, though;
> presumably Danny would know.)
>
> In any case, there's still the issue of finding something suitable to
> link to.  The en: article on the group
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Group) is in pretty poor shape,
> and the handful of other languages don't seem to be any better.
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061226/d7df0384/attachment-0001.pgp


subject: [Foundation-l] Site notice change

body:
NullC just informed me that we originally promised to link to the
official sites. I agree that we should not renege on that promise.

Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> On 12/26/06, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
>> It's not Virgin's choice. If they get to dictate the nature of their
>> representation, it starts to border on advertising. I think we'll have
>> better credibility with the community if we link to an article.
>
> True, and I doubt that they can dictate anything at this point.  I
> nevertheless think that it would be rather crass of us to not link to
> them if we told them that we would do so when the matching donation
> was arranged.  (I have no idea if this was actually the case, though;
> presumably Danny would know.)
>
> In any case, there's still the issue of finding something suitable to
> link to.  The en: article on the group
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Group) is in pretty poor shape,
> and the handful of other languages don't seem to be any better.
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061226/d7df0384/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Foundation-l] Site notice change

body:
NullC just informed me that we originally promised to link to the
official sites. I agree that we should not renege on that promise.

Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> On 12/26/06, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
>> It's not Virgin's choice. If they get to dictate the nature of their
>> representation, it starts to border on advertising. I think we'll have
>> better credibility with the community if we link to an article.
>
> True, and I doubt that they can dictate anything at this point.  I
> nevertheless think that it would be rather crass of us to not link to
> them if we told them that we would do so when the matching donation
> was arranged.  (I have no idea if this was actually the case, though;
> presumably Danny would know.)
>
> In any case, there's still the issue of finding something suitable to
> link to.  The en: article on the group
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Group) is in pretty poor shape,
> and the handful of other languages don't seem to be any better.
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061226/d7df0384/attachment-0001.pgp>


subject: [Foundation-l] Site notice change

body:
Actually, as Kirill pointed out, we have an agreement with Virgin. However,
I would question whether we have more credibility if we link to an article.
People would question whether the article maintained NPOV, considering the
amount of money they are giving us.

In a message dated 12/26/2006 10:51:29 PM Eastern Standard Time,
david at fourkitchens.com writes:

It's not  Virgin's choice. If they get to dictate the nature of their
representation,  it starts to border on advertising. I think we'll have
better credibility  with the community if we link to an article.


subject: [Foundation-l] Site notice change


from_name: Kat Walsh

subject: [Foundation-l] Site notice change

body:
On 12/26/06, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
> It's not Virgin's choice. If they get to dictate the nature of their
> representation, it starts to border on advertising. I think we'll have
> better credibility with the community if we link to an article.

They don't get to dictate the nature of their representation.

They did not write the text or choose how they would be recognized;
the text will be a neutral thanks. However, linking to an article is
something of invitation to the sort of mischief-making (vandalism,
POV-pushing, accusations of biasing the article, whatever else) that I
wouldn't consider a suitable thank-you. And as pointed out by Kirill
Lokshin, it would probably require that we make our articles on the
company quite a bit better...

(I would hope the extra attention would make people notice and improve
the articles, but that's as an editor -- there is not and there will
not be any agreements about article content!)

For those who are interested, there is more information about the
matching donations in the fundraising FAQ on the Foundation site:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising_FAQ

-Kat

--
Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
* *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage
mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone


subject: [Foundation-l] Site notice change


from_name: James Hare

subject: [Foundation-l] Site notice change

body:
We can link to the official site (as per agreement) -and- to the article
perhaps?

On 12/26/06, Kat Walsh <kwalsh at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> On 12/26/06, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
> > It's not Virgin's choice. If they get to dictate the nature of their
> > representation, it starts to border on advertising. I think we'll have
> > better credibility with the community if we link to an article.
>
> They don't get to dictate the nature of their representation.
>
> They did not write the text or choose how they would be recognized;
> the text will be a neutral thanks. However, linking to an article is
> something of invitation to the sort of mischief-making (vandalism,
> POV-pushing, accusations of biasing the article, whatever else) that I
> wouldn't consider a suitable thank-you. And as pointed out by Kirill
> Lokshin, it would probably require that we make our articles on the
> company quite a bit better...
>
> (I would hope the extra attention would make people notice and improve
> the articles, but that's as an editor -- there is not and there will
> not be any agreements about article content!)
>
> For those who are interested, there is more information about the
> matching donations in the fundraising FAQ on the Foundation site:
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising_FAQ
>
> -Kat
>
> --
> Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
> * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage
> mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Site notice change


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7

body:
> I see PRODs get removed too often without any reason for the removal being
> stated.
> That's behavior that should be stomped out somehow. Not in a punitive way,
> but we should still get rid of it.

The burden of proof is on the person wanting it deleted, not on the
person wanting it kept. The entire principle of PROD is that only
completely uncontroversial articles should be deleted without
discussion - if someone has removed the PROD, for whatever reason, the
deletion is controversial, and should be discussed fully.


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7

body:
On 12/26/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Not to mention it could easily get gamed -- imagine if there's five people
> interested in some band from Deluth no one cares about, except those five
> people that manage to get the article saved (at least from speedy
> deletion).
> System gamed.
>
> We should do what we already do -- speedy delete those that fail to even
> assert notability, and PROD those that are non-notable despite assertion.
> If
> the PROD is removed, then AFD is necessary simply because it makes us look
> good. Assume good faith across the board.

I see PRODs get removed too often without any reason for the removal being
stated.
That's behavior that should be stomped out somehow. Not in a punitive way,
but we should still get rid of it.

Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Acces to Sub-categories

body:
Marc Riddell wrote:
> Hello out there!
>
> This is an issue I have been confronted with for months now. Each time I
> have asked about it , what answers I have gotten thus far have been mostly
> avoidances.
>
> Here is the problem: Since the implementation of the new format, I have lost
> all access to subcategories. When I go to a Main Category and click on its
> subcategories, all I get is the word 'loading' and nothing more!
>
> Help!!
>
> Frustrated & desperate!!!!
>
> Marc Riddell
>

Have you tried clicking on the subcategory name instead of the "+"
button? That ought to just take you to the subcategory page, rather than
loading the subcategories inline.

-Gurch


list: wikitech-l

from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-12-27

body:
An automated run of parserTests.php showed the following failures:

This is MediaWiki version 1.9alpha (r18610).
Reading tests from "/home/brion/src/wiki/phase3/maintenance/parserTests.txt"...
Running test TODO: Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test Thumbnail image caption with a free URL... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A ISBN with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A RFC with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A mailto link with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A <math> with a thumbnail- we don't render math in the parsertests by default,
so math is not stripped and turns up as escaped <math> tags.... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test Image caption containing another image... FAILED!
Running test Bug 3090: External links other than http: in image captions... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test Fuzz testing: image with bogus manual thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Parsing optional HTML elements (Bug 6171)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Mixing markup for italics and bold... FAILED!
Running test TODO: 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line... FAILED!
Running test TODO: dt/dd/dl test... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Images with the "|" character in the comment... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, without trailing slash or name.... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, with lots of extra trailing slashes.... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Don't fall for the self-closing div... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Always escape literal '>' in output, not just after '<'... FAILED!

Reading tests from "/home/brion/src/wiki/phase3/extensions/Cite/citeParserTests.txt"...

Reading tests from "/home/brion/src/wiki/phase3/extensions/Poem/poemParserTests.txt"...

   8 new PASSING test(s) :)
      * Self-link in language variants
      * Link to pages in language variants
      * Multiple links to pages in language variants
      * Simple template in language variants
      * Template with explicit namespace in language variants
      * Basic test for template parameter in language variants
      * Simple category in language variants
      * Stripping -{}- tags (language variants)
Passed 463 of 490 tests (94.49%)... FAILED!


subject: [Foundation-l] Site notice change

body:
Virgin United is Virgin's charitable division.

Oldak Quill wrote:
> On 27/12/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On December 28 we will be changing the fundraising sitenotice for 24 hours.
>> The new site notice will be identical to the anonymous donor site notice,
>> except  that it will say.
>>
>> "Today your donation will be matched by Virgin United."
>>
>> Virgin United will be a link to the Virgin United website. There will also
>> be a small Virgin logo in the sitenotice. A sample will be ready for you
>> tomorrow morning (Brion time).
>>
>> Please convey this to the appropriate people.
>>
>> Danny
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> I'm having a little trouble finding out who "Virgin United" is.
> Neither Wikipedia nor Google has enlightened me. Is this Richard
> Branson's Virgin? If not, could you give us a link to their website?
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061227/4703aaa3/attachment.pgp


subject: [Foundation-l] Site notice change

body:
Virgin United is Virgin's charitable division.

Oldak Quill wrote:
> On 27/12/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On December 28 we will be changing the fundraising sitenotice for 24 hours.
>> The new site notice will be identical to the anonymous donor site notice,
>> except  that it will say.
>>
>> "Today your donation will be matched by Virgin United."
>>
>> Virgin United will be a link to the Virgin United website. There will also
>> be a small Virgin logo in the sitenotice. A sample will be ready for you
>> tomorrow morning (Brion time).
>>
>> Please convey this to the appropriate people.
>>
>> Danny
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> I'm having a little trouble finding out who "Virgin United" is.
> Neither Wikipedia nor Google has enlightened me. Is this Richard
> Branson's Virgin? If not, could you give us a link to their website?
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061227/4703aaa3/attachment-0001.pgp


subject: [Foundation-l] Site notice change

body:
Virgin United is Virgin's charitable division.

Oldak Quill wrote:
> On 27/12/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On December 28 we will be changing the fundraising sitenotice for 24 hours.
>> The new site notice will be identical to the anonymous donor site notice,
>> except  that it will say.
>>
>> "Today your donation will be matched by Virgin United."
>>
>> Virgin United will be a link to the Virgin United website. There will also
>> be a small Virgin logo in the sitenotice. A sample will be ready for you
>> tomorrow morning (Brion time).
>>
>> Please convey this to the appropriate people.
>>
>> Danny
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> I'm having a little trouble finding out who "Virgin United" is.
> Neither Wikipedia nor Google has enlightened me. Is this Richard
> Branson's Virgin? If not, could you give us a link to their website?
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061227/4703aaa3/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Foundation-l] Site notice change

body:
Virgin United is Virgin's charitable division.

Oldak Quill wrote:
> On 27/12/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On December 28 we will be changing the fundraising sitenotice for 24 hours.
>> The new site notice will be identical to the anonymous donor site notice,
>> except  that it will say.
>>
>> "Today your donation will be matched by Virgin United."
>>
>> Virgin United will be a link to the Virgin United website. There will also
>> be a small Virgin logo in the sitenotice. A sample will be ready for you
>> tomorrow morning (Brion time).
>>
>> Please convey this to the appropriate people.
>>
>> Danny
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> I'm having a little trouble finding out who "Virgin United" is.
> Neither Wikipedia nor Google has enlightened me. Is this Richard
> Branson's Virgin? If not, could you give us a link to their website?
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061227/4703aaa3/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [WikiEN-l] Categories

body:
On 12/27/06, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> I came across an Article in Wikipedia that needed categorization. The
> Article is a biography of a person in a field I am unfamiliar with.
>
> Question: where do I go to get a list of all the Categories in Wikipedia?

[[Wikipedia:Categorical index]] is a good place to start.

Since it's a biography [[Category:People]] will probably be useful;
you can start with finding an appropriate category for the person
based on their occupation, that is [[Category:People by occupation]]
and the various subcategories.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Luna

subject: [WikiEN-l] When deletionism crosses a line

body:
On 12/25/06, Leif Knutsen <vyerllc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I want to raise one specific and one general issue for discussion:
>
> 1) A recently created article about a newly appointed bishop in the Church
> of Norway was nominated by a self-described "disiplined deletionist" for
> speedy deletion. The nomination was subsequently defended on the basis
> that
> our standards for notability don't say anything about Norwegian bishops.

This is where you quote [[WP:IAR]] at them --  the guy's a damned bishop,
he's certainly at least notable enough for AfD. At the very least, the fact
that another experienced editor is disagreeing about the speedy nom should
give this person pause, I think.

In this case, a speedy seems blatantly inappropriate. I'd personally just
remove the tag and ask that they go for AfD or nothing.

Just my thoughts,
-Luna


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] Assume good faith

body:
I have a memory.

of another letter, written 2 years ago, by Jimbo.

And also talking about love.

And I thought that Brion email just contained the exact bit of truth,
the essence of the community.

I put it there so as to avoid it getting lost and forgotten.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home

Thanks Brion

Ant

and Brion Vibber wrote:
> I love you guys, seriously. All of you.
>
> And that's not just the eggnog talking... Wikipedia and all our
> Wikimedia projects are, when you think about it, *pretty darn awesome*
> and they exist because some *pretty darn awesome people* are working
> together.
>
> Those pretty awesome people include YOU!
>
> YOU are pretty darn awesome!
>
>
> But we do have a bit of a collective anger management problem.
>
> There's lots of flamefests on the lists, on talk pages, on village
> pumps, in edit wars, in irc, in private mail...
>
> I'm no saint either; I believe I used words such as "idiot" in a certain
> thread a few days ago which I really oughtn't to have.
>
>
> Well, there's no point blaming anyone or saying anything specific here.
> I just want to pass on a big sloppy group hug love letter to all y'all
> Wikimedians out there.
>
>
> Remember, folks, a community like this functions because its members are
> willing and able to communicate to reach some end goal.
>
> If you're about to type off another e-mail or talk page note in anger,
> please... get off the computer for a second. Get a beverage of your
> choice, take a walk, eat a cookie, make a sandwich, tell a joke, stretch
> your legs, anything -- just cool off a second.
>
> When you get back to the computer, pretend for a second that the other
> person might have a point. Even if they are wrong, consider whether what
> you're typing will lead to a useful conversation or if you know it'll
> just make them mad and provoke a further negative response.
>
>
> The worst thing you or I can do is to assume the other person is a jerk
> who refuses to listen to reason and, therefore, we can and should ignore
> anything they say.
>
> I know I'm often guilty of assuming bad faith and taking on an automatic
> defensive position.
>
> What say we all give the opposite a try when we notice ourselves slipping?
>
> HHHHUUUUUGGGGSSSSSSSSS
>
> love,
> brion


subject: [Foundation-l] Assume good faith


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Foundation-l] Automatic username transliteration for SUL

body:
If we all sound like Stephen Hawking maybe the machine will guess that
we are all geniuses. :-)

Ec

James Hare wrote:

>What I would like to know is how a machine will be able to deduce a
>pronounciation through a username.
>
>On 12/24/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Neil Harris wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If we can make it as simple as that (and acknowledge that the automatic
>>>transliteration will often be very, very,  bad) we could possibly make
>>>this work, with the option to change your nick to something else later.
>>>
>>>Perhaps language -> IPA -> language might be a good way of helping the m
>>>x n problem for this, in which case we could use language <-> IPA tables
>>>to bootstrap this.
>>>
>>>Would this be a good idea, or would it be linguistic nonsense?
>>>
>>>
>>Probably linguistic nonsense.  Although it serves a very useful purpose
>>in conveying pronunciations, anly a limited community interested in
>>linguistics will be familiar with it.  For everybody else (which to be
>>fair must include the English speakers) it amounts to attaining equality
>>by putting everything into a common language which all will equally not
>>understand. :-)
>>


subject: [WikiEN-l] POV on Israel

body:
Parker Peters wrote:

>On 12/24/06, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Why do you feel the compulsion to do it
>>here? Racist is using the word antisemitic and denying the equivalent
>>use of antimuslim-itic (or what ever term is appropriate). Either get
>>over calling people names or actually leave like you threaten to.
>>
>>
>Racism is the kind of behavior that Israel and Israelis face on a regular
>basis, and the fact that we have editors always trying to POV our articles
>related to Israel into propaganda saying Israel is bad, Israel is evil,
>yadda yadda is nothing new given that there are a decently large portion of
>the world who seem to feel that they have some right to do this.
>
Please stop perpetrating the illusion that very, very valid criticism of
the State of Israel is somehow equivalent to racism.

>Or did you miss the grand "the holocaust didn't happen" party in Iran the
>other week?
>
See [[Parallel universe (fiction)]]

Ec


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Categories

body:
Marc Riddell wrote:
> I came across an Article in Wikipedia that needed categorization. The
> Article is a biography of a person in a field I am unfamiliar with.
>
> Question: where do I go to get a list of all the Categories in Wikipedia?

Others have answered that specific question, but if you don't want to go
rooting around trying to figure out the right category for an article on
a topic you're not familiar with what you can do instead is just toss it
into an overly-generic one such as [[Category:People]] or
[[Category:Engineers]]. Eventually someone else will notice it and
perhaps know of a more appropriate subcategory to shuffle it off into.

As a concrete example, I've been dumping articles on musical groups into
[[Category:Musical groups]] for at least a year (whenever I stumble
across one at random) and have never had any complaints. I also
sometimes add a plain old {{stub}} tag and let the stub-sorters worry
about the specifics.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061227/99b25d56/attachment.pgp


from_name: Oldak Quill

subject: [Foundation-l] Site notice change

body:
On 27/12/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On December 28 we will be changing the fundraising sitenotice for 24 hours.
> The new site notice will be identical to the anonymous donor site notice,
> except  that it will say.
>
> "Today your donation will be matched by Virgin United."
>
> Virgin United will be a link to the Virgin United website. There will also
> be a small Virgin logo in the sitenotice. A sample will be ready for you
> tomorrow morning (Brion time).
>
> Please convey this to the appropriate people.
>
> Danny
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I'm having a little trouble finding out who "Virgin United" is.
Neither Wikipedia nor Google has enlightened me. Is this Richard
Branson's Virgin? If not, could you give us a link to their website?

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [Foundation-l] Site notice change


from_name: Christopher Hagar

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7

body:
The problem with prodding new pages is if the prod is removed by the
creator, or anyone else who is more interested in showcasing their awesome
band or webcomic than in creating an encyclopedia. Prod would be essentially
meaningless if the broadest conception of "controversial" were used; almost
every article was created by someone who wanted it on Wikipedia and opposes
its removal. Changing A7 to prod would mean sending hundreds of additional
articles to AfD a week, where they will be deleted almost unanimously.

On 12/26/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I see PRODs get removed too often without any reason for the removal
> being
> > stated.
> > That's behavior that should be stomped out somehow. Not in a punitive
> way,
> > but we should still get rid of it.
>
> The burden of proof is on the person wanting it deleted, not on the
> person wanting it kept. The entire principle of PROD is that only
> completely uncontroversial articles should be deleted without
> discussion - if someone has removed the PROD, for whatever reason, the
> deletion is controversial, and should be discussed fully.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Marc Riddell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Acces to Sub-categories

body:
> From: "Ryan Wetherell" <renardius at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 19:23:01 -0900
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Acces to Sub-categories
>
> On 12/26/06, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> From: Rich Holton <richholton at gmail.com>
>>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>> Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 19:00:28 -0600
>>> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Acces to Sub-categories
>>>
>>> Marc Riddell wrote:
>>>> I just tried that with the Category: Activists. There is no subcategory
>>>> name
>>>> only this B *
>>>> [+]
>>>>
>>>> Curious, I copied the above 'B * [+]' to my clipboard directly from
>>>> Wikipedia, and when I pasted it here it included this: 'Bisexual rights
>>>> activistsloading' This does not appear when I click on it in the
>>>> encyclopedia.
>>>>
>>>> What could that mean?
>>>>
>>>> Marc
>>>
>>> Hmmm.... Do you have custom css for Wikipedia? If not, what browser are
>>> you using? Do you have javascript enabled?
>>>
>>> -Rich
>>
>> Rich,
>>
>> I'm emailing my computer person with your questions now. I'll get back to
>> you as soon as he responds with the answers.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Marc
>
> As Matthew suggested, the subcategories should still be accessible if
> you click their names rather than the [+].  I don't often use the
> inline category tree myself, and don't mind loading a few more pages.
>
> --Ryan

The problem with that is the subcategory names are not showing; only the
letter (e.g., 'A') and the +.

Thanks,

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


from_name: Lane, Ryan

subject: [Wikitech-l] Adding custom CSS and Javascript for extensions

body:
I'm working on a new extension, and it adds quite a bit of new CSS and
Javascript. Other than hacking MonoBook.php, is there an easy way for me
to add stuff into the headers? I can't seem to find any hooks that do
this...

Thanks,

Ryan Lane


subject: [WikiEN-l] Categories

body:
> From: Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 03:22:50 -0700
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Categories
>
> Marc Riddell wrote:
>> I came across an Article in Wikipedia that needed categorization. The
>> Article is a biography of a person in a field I am unfamiliar with.
>>
>> Question: where do I go to get a list of all the Categories in Wikipedia?
>
> Others have answered that specific question, but if you don't want to go
> rooting around trying to figure out the right category for an article on
> a topic you're not familiar with what you can do instead is just toss it
> into an overly-generic one such as [[Category:People]] or
> [[Category:Engineers]]. Eventually someone else will notice it and
> perhaps know of a more appropriate subcategory to shuffle it off into.
>
> As a concrete example, I've been dumping articles on musical groups into
> [[Category:Musical groups]] for at least a year (whenever I stumble
> across one at random) and have never had any complaints. I also
> sometimes add a plain old {{stub}} tag and let the stub-sorters worry
> about the specifics.

Thanks. Actually I usually try to do it intuitively - as in 'there are so
many Categories in Wikipedia it would make sense that?' etc. I add it, if it
comes up blue in preview, terrific; if not, I punt. But placing generic
categories in an Article is better than nothing; and, when I've come across
other Articles with broad Categories, the subject of which I am familiar,
I'm happy to add more specific ones. It all works out.

Thanks again for your input.

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


from_name: Robert Scott Horning

subject: [Foundation-l] Contributors vs Authors

body:
Andrew Whitworth wrote:

>On en.wikibooks we are having some problems instituting an ownership policy
>(a local equivalent of [[WP:OWN]]). Some of the common arguments we are
>receiving are:
>1. There is a qualitative distinction between "authors" and "contributors".
>Not all contributors can be listed as authors of a particular book
>(especially if the book is printed and distributed).
>2. The history pages represent a "log", and do not constitute legal
>attribution
>3. "Contributors" do not have the legal rights that "authors" do.
>None of us at en.wikibooks are lawyers, and frankly we don't know how to
>address these objections, or where to find the correct answers. Also,
>because books are distributed projects (spread across multiple pages), it is
>not uncommon on wikibooks for a book to have a list of authors somewhere.
>Are such lists appropriate?
>
>Any help in these questions would be much appreciated. --Andrew Whitworth
>
>

While I would agree that the "history page" of articles/modules only are
a log, it is at least in theory possible to go through the history of
what is written and be able to attribute each and every word with the
person who originally penned that word.  As such, this history itself is
able to constitute legal attribution.

BTW, this is a problem that has been discussed with articles that have
been transwikied between the various Wikimedia projects, and to other
3rd party Wikis such as the Novella Wiki and Memory Alpha.  The
"Special:Export" does not provide all of the information necessary for a
proper attribution of all of the words in the article, at least
currently as implemented for Wikimedia projects.

I've struggled in attempts to try and come up with a metric to determine
who the "primary" authors of a page are.  Two obvious methods include
edit counts and word counts.  Of the two, edit counts are far simplier
to implement but also include known vandals and minor changes like
admins reverting vandalism or even just fixing spelling or other minor
editorial actions.

In addition to everything else, it is also necessary for legal copyright
reasons to get to know exactly who is claiming copyright on a particular
work.... particularly for larger works like a Wikibook.  For this
reason, having just a psuedonym with no additional information is not
sufficient, but instead an actual legal name is required, together with
information such as your current country of residence and nationality
(in terms of whose laws will be enforced regarding copyright).  You
simply can't assume that all Wikimedia content will be (or should be)
enforced and protected under laws of the State of Florida and the USA.

I have fought in the past (even submitted a Bugzilla request) to have
added to the "user information" for each Wikimedia user some additional
"voluntary" information that could be used for the purposes of
publishing Wikimedia content.  This includes your legal (or "Real")
name, and where you live.  Sure, you can make this up and put places
like "Alpha Centauri" in as where you live, but by so doing you are
essentially granting all of your contributions to the public domain.
 For some Wikimedia users, that probably would be just fine and what
they intend.  For others, legitimate copyright enforcement under the
terms of the GFDL is exactly what they are interested in, and to do that
you need to have this actual information.

I know that there are those on this mailing list that are very paranoid
about privacy.  And with legitimate cause.  But at the same time, if you
want legal protections like copyright you need to stick your neck out
and proclaim exactly who you are and where you live.  This is one of the
reasons why my user account uses my actual legal name instead of a
psudonym, as I do claim copyright on all of my (now significant)
contributions to Wikimedia projects.  And if I catch somebody misusing
that content in violation of the GFDL, I will seek damages in a court of
law, under the laws of my nationality:  The United States of America.

I don't expect everybody to do this, which is why this needs to be
voluntary.  And on Wikibooks I established the tradition of asking
politely to have people add their names to a list of authors precisely
because MediaWiki software does not allow you otherwise to provide this
information, at the moment.  For those who for various reasons want to
remain anonymous, I support the general idea that they should remain so.
 And that Wikimedia policies should be established to protect that
privacy.  But you also give up something in the process of being
anonymous, and one of those things is the right to control who copies
your work, including even under the terms of the GFDL.

--
Robert Scott Horning


subject: [Foundation-l] Contributors vs Authors


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Club of New York

body:
I say we schedule a meetup for either January 26 or Feburary 2.

(Gee, who saw THAT coming?)

On 12/26/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
> I will be in New York on the 26th of January and the 1st and 2nd of
> February.  (i.e. two Fridays in a row).
>
> Maybe the timing will be right for me to join the festivities...
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Acces to Sub-categories

body:
> From: Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 08:04:00 -0500
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Acces to Sub-categories
>
>
>
>> From: "Ryan Wetherell" <renardius at gmail.com>
>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>> Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 19:23:01 -0900
>> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Acces to Sub-categories
>>
>> On 12/26/06, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: Rich Holton <richholton at gmail.com>
>>>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>>> Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 19:00:28 -0600
>>>> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Acces to Sub-categories
>>>>
>>>> Marc Riddell wrote:
>>>>> I just tried that with the Category: Activists. There is no subcategory
>>>>> name
>>>>> only this B *
>>>>> [+]
>>>>>
>>>>> Curious, I copied the above 'B * [+]' to my clipboard directly from
>>>>> Wikipedia, and when I pasted it here it included this: 'Bisexual rights
>>>>> activistsloading' This does not appear when I click on it in the
>>>>> encyclopedia.
>>>>>
>>>>> What could that mean?
>>>>>
>>>>> Marc
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm.... Do you have custom css for Wikipedia? If not, what browser are
>>>> you using? Do you have javascript enabled?
>>>>
>>>> -Rich
>>>
>>> Rich,
>>>
>>> I'm emailing my computer person with your questions now. I'll get back to
>>> you as soon as he responds with the answers.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Marc

Update: I'm using 'Internet Explorer' on a Mac; and, yes. Javascript is
enabled. It appears I'm due for some software upgrading. At least I know
what the problem is now, and that it will be a pain in the ass until I
upgrade.

Thanks for your input.

Marc
>>
>> As Matthew suggested, the subcategories should still be accessible if
>> you click their names rather than the [+].  I don't often use the
>> inline category tree myself, and don't mind loading a few more pages.
>>
>> --Ryan
>
> The problem with that is the subcategory names are not showing; only the
> letter (e.g., 'A') and the +.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Marc
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: \Mike

subject:
[Foundation-l] English Wikipedia ethnocentric policy affects
	other communities

body:
geni <geniice at ...> writes:

>
> On 12/22/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at ...> wrote:
> > So we better train either the anti-spoofing software or blocking bots
> > like the one Curps had. If it can automatically block anything with
> > "ON WHEELS" in it, surely it or something like it can be expanded to
> > pick up swear words or recognisable patterns in other languages.
>
> Could. Less effort to shoot non Latin usernames on site than to use up
> our limited multilingual resources..
>

A number of times I've seen that people here are worried that large amounts of
vandal accounts could be created on e.g. en:wp by using non-latin scripts and by
bots create user names on a specific theme (or nonsensical). This makes me
wonder, does there exist any preparation for the day when someone creates large
amounts of accounts, all named after Italian words describing... "anatomy", or
Hungarian curses? That'd be, I think, just as difficult to recognize as
bot-created for a non-Italian/non-Hungarian speaker as the corresponding
nonsense user names in Arabic or Thai.

\Mike


subject: [WikiEN-l] POV on Israel

body:
> From: "James Hare" <messedrocker at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 21:07:01 -0500
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] POV on Israel
>
> Irrelevant conversation.
>
> Get back on task.

Sounds like someone may have a control issue here.

M
>
> On 12/24/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 24/12/06, Tom Tolnam <ttolnam at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 24/12/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- <tariqabjotu at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why not? Not everyone celebrates Christmas; the majority of the world
>> is
>>>> not Christian.
>>>
>>>
>>> As I remember, 3 billion Christians in the world over 6 billion total
>>> population equals a close minority or a close majority.
>>>
>>> However, this is not important.  I used unverified figures sure to be
>>> controversial, and probably incorrect.  Despite this, Christianity IS
>> the
>>> largest religion.
>>
>> It might be the largest religion, but what of it? At 2 billion
>> followers, it's still a minority religion.
>>
>> --
>> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] POV on Israel

body:
Nah, nah, just that I didn't want people to lose focus.

On 12/27/06, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > From: "James Hare" <messedrocker at gmail.com>
> > Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 21:07:01 -0500
> > To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] POV on Israel
> >
> > Irrelevant conversation.
> >
> > Get back on task.
>
> Sounds like someone may have a control issue here.
>
> M
> >
> > On 12/24/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 24/12/06, Tom Tolnam <ttolnam at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 24/12/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- <tariqabjotu at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Why not? Not everyone celebrates Christmas; the majority of the world
> >> is
> >>>> not Christian.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> As I remember, 3 billion Christians in the world over 6 billion total
> >>> population equals a close minority or a close majority.
> >>>
> >>> However, this is not important.  I used unverified figures sure to be
> >>> controversial, and probably incorrect.  Despite this, Christianity IS
> >> the
> >>> largest religion.
> >>
> >> It might be the largest religion, but what of it? At 2 billion
> >> followers, it's still a minority religion.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

body:
Marc Riddell wrote:
>
> There seems to be a great concern about having verifiable material ?sources?
> in Wikipedia that can be checked; why not place at least as much importance
> on the ?sources? (the editors) of the very material that is included? We
> want to be able to check the reliability of the substance of the text, but
> seem to place little importance on being able to check on who entered it in
> the first place.
>
If the material is taken from an authoritative published source, why
does it matter who typed it in? Is "the leaves are 20-30 cm long" more
correct if it's personally typed in by the professional botanist, than
by the high-school student who works from the botanist's book and lists
it as a source?
> If I want to question the substance of an Article in Wikipedia, I should be
> able to go to an editor?s personal information page and get a sense that
> they have the expertise to be editing the material, and a page where I can
> contact them with questions. Every, reputable reference work has this.
>
"Get a sense"? So what you're saying is you want WP's reputation to hang
on *your* intuition-based assessment of the editors' personal details?
I'm an expert in some areas that I edit and an amateur in others, and as
an expert it's hugely tempting to write into articles "this is true
because *I* said so". But then how does someone else check that? I don't
want to be answering the phone all day, and when I die, or more likely
sooner, completely forget why I made the statement, what then? The whole
approach of relying on "who you know" is really sloppy scholarship
that's unfortunately common today, and I hope that WP will eventually
come to be seen as exemplifying a stricter standard based on
publications rather than personalities.

Stan


from_name: Christopher Thieme

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Club of New York

body:
I might have to come back early from Sun Valley (where I have been since
last night and was to be until February 1st) to meet Jimbo and spend some
time off the slopes to put something together.  As the guest of honour, what
kind of event would you prefer to kick off the WCNY?

Regards
Christopher D. Thieme

P.S. Newyorkbrad...thinking of the above...when are your Gilbert & Sullivan
performances?

On 12/26/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
> I will be in New York on the 26th of January and the 1st and 2nd of
> February.  (i.e. two Fridays in a row).
>
> Maybe the timing will be right for me to join the festivities...
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

body:
On 12/26/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> I think the question had more to do with verifying a claim that a
> particular musical work is in C major.  It would seem a waste of time if
> every time the description of a piece of music included its key there
> would need to be a source to establish that as true.
>
> If someone claims that a piece of music is in C major I have to accept
> that without the need to go through a mini-course on music theory.

Which "someone" do you mean - a Wikipedian? The hard-line view of OR
which has dominated most of this discussion seems to indicate that a
source is needed for *everything*. IMHO, totally unworkable, and not
even desirable. We serve our readers, and ourselves, better by simply
referring to the work as being in C, then if we feel the need, adding
a footnote like "No sharps or flats are indicated in the key
signature, and the final cadence is C major" or whatever.

Steve


from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-12-23

body:
On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 09:26:40PM +0000, Rob Church wrote:
> On 26/12/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 26/12/06, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > So whose fault is this?  Hasn't been fixed yet.
> >
> > It would be damn useful if the parser test output included the SVN
> > revision number it was running against...
>
> ...added that in r18597.

Open Source: Where Good Ideas... Just Happen.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274


subject: [WikiEN-l] POV on Israel

body:
James,

I apologize if I misread (or, in this case, misdiagnosed) the cause of your
statement; we psychs are sensitive (perhaps too) to things like that.

Have a healthy new year.

My best.

Marc Riddell

> From: "James Hare" <messedrocker at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 10:07:31 -0500
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] POV on Israel
>
> Nah, nah, just that I didn't want people to lose focus.
>
> On 12/27/06, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> From: "James Hare" <messedrocker at gmail.com>
>>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>> Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 21:07:01 -0500
>>> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] POV on Israel
>>>
>>> Irrelevant conversation.
>>>
>>> Get back on task.
>>
>> Sounds like someone may have a control issue here.
>>
>> M
>>>
>>> On 12/24/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 24/12/06, Tom Tolnam <ttolnam at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 24/12/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- <tariqabjotu at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why not? Not everyone celebrates Christmas; the majority of the world
>>>> is
>>>>>> not Christian.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As I remember, 3 billion Christians in the world over 6 billion total
>>>>> population equals a close minority or a close majority.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, this is not important.  I used unverified figures sure to be
>>>>> controversial, and probably incorrect.  Despite this, Christianity IS
>>>> the
>>>>> largest religion.
>>>>
>>>> It might be the largest religion, but what of it? At 2 billion
>>>> followers, it's still a minority religion.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [Wikitech-l] How not to discourage technical contributions

body:
On Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 01:11:09PM +0100, Timwi wrote:
> I know all that. But if the "usual location" is too complex to use, it
> is discouraging to know that the only (accepted) way to contribute is to
> learn a lot of stuff you're not really interested in (such as, for
> example, how to use BugZilla -- in all honesty, its UI is crap -- or
> even something like diff, a command-line tool with no UI at all).

BZ's UI is crap.

RedHat's version is much less so.

How come those patches never made it back into the mainline?

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274


subject: [Wikitech-l] pda extension ?

body:
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 02:55:52AM +1100, Stephen Bain wrote:
> On 12/28/06, Plyd <wiki.vincent at amplyd.com> wrote:
> > Is there a project for a pda extension of mediawiki? or for small sized screens?
>
> There's a few out there:
>
> http://palmtops.about.com/od/palmtoppicks/tp/wikipedia_pda.htm
>
> This seems fairly well developed, it's for iPods:
>
> http://encyclopodia.sourceforge.net/en/index.html

And let me note here, as I so often do, that I read WP on my Blackberry
quite frequently, and the combination of page layout and CSS (which my
browser ignores) works quite well on that size screen, with the stock
Blackberry browser.

So I'm not sure how much extension it can be said actually to need....

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274


subject: [Wikitech-l] pda extension ?

body:
On Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 05:10:49PM +0100, Plyd wrote:
> I mean, we have a different page for printing pages, couldn't this be
> done also for pda?

You wouldn't want to do it that way; if you did, you'd have to click
through to it from every page.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274


from_name: Rich Holton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Acces to Sub-categories

body:
Marc Riddell wrote:
>
> Update: I'm using 'Internet Explorer' on a Mac; and, yes. Javascript is
> enabled. It appears I'm due for some software upgrading. At least I know
> what the problem is now, and that it will be a pain in the ass until I
> upgrade.
>
> Thanks for your input.
>

Marc,

I sincerely hope you get things working properly. I don't know much
about Mac's, but I do know what a pain computer problems are.

Once all is updated, you may find that your Web experience is better
than ever. I hope that's the case.

-Rich


subject: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

body:
Marc Riddell wrote:
> Quite seriously, though, I believe one of the persistent flaws in Wikipedia
> that is preventing it from having a wider, more professional acceptance is
> its policy 'anyone can edit'.
>
Have you thought through what you would change it to, and what would be
the consequences? If only a chosen list of experts can edit article X,
what do you do about spelling errors (many experts being atrocious
spellers), and bad links to articles outside the experts' area? Do
spelling fixes have to wait for the experts to approve them? How long
would one have to wait, if the experts were all "too busy"? Would you
let experts edit articles outside of their areas, even in areas where
they might know less than a college student? What is an "expert", and an
"area", anyway? There have been no lack of proposals since WP's
creation, but so far no scheme has convinced very many people that it
would be an improvement.
> I get a great deal of satisfaction from contributing to Wikipedia. It is
> what's right that makes us good; but it is what's still wrong that keeps us
> from being great.
>
I believe one of the secret strengths of WP is that it doesn't actually
need every expert to participate. Empirically, many experts that have
worked here awhile tend to take on "editor-in-chief" roles in their
respective areas, not necessarily writing every word, but organizing,
setting standards, and cleaning up after the amateur hordes; 99% of the
amateur editors are happy and even eager to get expert guidance, and as
they learn, they contribute with more expertise themselves.

Since WP is now the largest single body of knowledge ever created,
perhaps this is as good it gets for a project of this magnitude -
nothing comparable to serve as a yardstick.

Stan


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

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

Marc Riddell stated for the record:
> Quite seriously, though, I believe one of the persistent flaws in Wikipedia
> that is preventing it from having a wider, more professional acceptance is
> its policy 'anyone can edit'.
>
> I get a great deal of satisfaction from contributing to Wikipedia. It is
> what's right that makes us good; but it is what's still wrong that keeps us
> from being great.
>
> Regards,
>
> Marc

A free encyclopedia that only credentialled experts could edit was
tried: [[Nupedia]].  "Before it ceased operating, Nupedia produced 24
articles that completed its review process (three articles also existed
in two versions of different lengths), and 74 more articles were in
progress."

[[Wikipedia]], in contrast, is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
 "Wikipedia has more than six million articles in many languages,
including more than 1.5 million articles in the English-language version
and more than half a million in the German-language version."

I find the contrast between those results hard to reconcile with the
idea that something is keeping us from being great.

I recommend judging the articles you read by the sources the cite.
Judging them by who their (often dozens of) editors were seems to me to
be a mistake.  The policy [[WP:OR]] explains this point in more detail.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Portions of this message were
 sean at epoptic.com | composed using a computer.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFkscl/SVOiq2uhHMRAvGnAKDVVdNdsx9hO7SWOcrn41+Le9OkiACglkSx
1OHJBaPJxt0ePRLX5a/vZys=
=LgG5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: jayjg

subject: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

body:
On 12/26/06, Ryan Wetherell <renardius at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/26/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/26/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > No, a source is only required for anything that is disputed. That's
> > pretty fundamental, WP:V. Quite workable and highly desirable.
> >
> > Jay.
>
> And it goes above and beyond just WP.  Citations of claims,
> inferences/conclusions/derived statements, and non-obvious factual
> statements (that is, not common knowledge [taking the arbitrary nature
> of "common knowledge" into consideration, of course]) are simply an
> academic "must" if you aim to be taken seriously.  That's how I
> interpret relevant Wikipedia policies, and how I apply them.

That's the point; if Wikipedia is going to become a source of
knowledge that is taken seriously, instead of being continually
derided, its standards are going to be have to be high, rather than
"it's ridiculous that I should have to cite all of my claims".


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Foundation-l] new site notice now ready

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

daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:
>  The site notice for Virgin United is ready. Thank you Brion.
>
>  Please translate accordingly. It is basically the same as our anon donor site notice.

The full prepared English version is available at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_sitenotice_2006_Q4

Please note that the link and logo are to be included by agreement with
the donor.

This is a one-day thing, so we'll want to take this version live around
midnight UTC (London time) and take it back down the next day.

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFksmIwRnhpk1wk44RAhhgAJ0aaDPMwV2TrtN4TSpohHZS42HETACgt+zG
1YRf5PhJhH5/02E6A4TPbuE=
=Ioo4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [Wikitech-l] pda extension ?

body:
On Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 05:27:19PM +0100, Plyd wrote:
> > And let me note here, as I so often do, that I read WP on my Blackberry
> > quite frequently, and the combination of page layout and CSS (which my
> > browser ignores) works quite well on that size screen, with the stock
> > Blackberry browser.
> >
> > So I'm not sure how much extension it can be said actually to need....
>
> Mine reads css but misplace elements on the page , for example, the
> left column is shown at bottom and a margin of this size is kept,
> making the article unreadable, with one word by line. Moreover, lot of
> data like language lists or toolbox, harmless for a classic screen
> transform the page in a monster, loosing the reader in thousands of
> informations.

Force CSS off, and you'll likely be happier.

CSS is almost never a win on a PDA sized screen, anyway.

> On 12/27/06, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 05:10:49PM +0100, Plyd wrote:
> > > I mean, we have a different page for printing pages, couldn't this be
> > > done also for pda?
> >
> > You wouldn't want to do it that way; if you did, you'd have to click
> > through to it from every page.
>
> Not sure. For example, google, which has a pda special interface,
> detects the browser and switches automatically to a light interface.
> imho, it could be done on a mediawiki page, the software detects the
> browser and shows the right interface.

Yes, which is the alternative approach to the "click on a printable
page link" like approach you were suggesting.

The problem *there* is that guesses are often wrong, and rarely
overridable.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom results... :-)

body:
"Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)" wrote

> On the other hand, it appears that there will be at least
> ten cases in the evidence stage but not yet being voted on as of January
> 1st.  I am concerned there will be an awful lot of "is this case ready to
> close, who's voting in this case, should we wait for more votes?" type of
> issues with so many new members and so many new cases.

The transition period will be marked by newcomers trying to find their way around, and probably the bringing of many fresh cases that people have held back. In practical terms this mainly means plenty to vote on. Let the clerks worry about the closures.

Charles

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

body:
Sean Barrett wrote:
> A free encyclopedia that only credentialled experts could edit was
> tried: [[Nupedia]].  "Before it ceased operating, Nupedia produced 24
> articles that completed its review process (three articles also existed
> in two versions of different lengths), and 74 more articles were in
> progress."
>
To be fair, those articles were pretty good - featured-article quality.
Used to run across them in WP from time to time. Might be interesting to
find them and review edit histories, see if they've gotten better or worse.

One of the things that's not much noticed about traditional
"expert-written" encyclopedias that they are also highly uneven in
quality. The really good entries are surrounded by a dozen hack jobs
that never get improved from one edition to the next. Compare the
more-obscure entries of modern EB to 1911 EB, in many cases the text has
only seen light editing in nearly a century...

Stan


from_name: James Hare

subject: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

body:
You have to cite all your claims in school, so why not Wikipedia?

On 12/27/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/26/06, Ryan Wetherell <renardius at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/26/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 12/26/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > No, a source is only required for anything that is disputed. That's
> > > pretty fundamental, WP:V. Quite workable and highly desirable.
> > >
> > > Jay.
> >
> > And it goes above and beyond just WP.  Citations of claims,
> > inferences/conclusions/derived statements, and non-obvious factual
> > statements (that is, not common knowledge [taking the arbitrary nature
> > of "common knowledge" into consideration, of course]) are simply an
> > academic "must" if you aim to be taken seriously.  That's how I
> > interpret relevant Wikipedia policies, and how I apply them.
>
> That's the point; if Wikipedia is going to become a source of
> knowledge that is taken seriously, instead of being continually
> derided, its standards are going to be have to be high, rather than
> "it's ridiculous that I should have to cite all of my claims".
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

body:
On 12/27/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> No, a source is only required for anything that is disputed. That's
> pretty fundamental, WP:V. Quite workable and highly desirable.

That's not quite what WP:V says (unfortunately):

   1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by
reliable sources.
   2. Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it
may be challenged or removed by any editor.
   3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the
editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to
remove it.

Point 2 is pretty bad - it turns WP:V into a process, rather than a
state. Were a particularly pedantic editor to show up, an article
would basically have to cite a source for all "material".

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Acces to Sub-categories

body:
Macs are fun.

On 12/27/06, Rich Holton <richholton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Marc Riddell wrote:
> >
> > Update: I'm using 'Internet Explorer' on a Mac; and, yes. Javascript is
> > enabled. It appears I'm due for some software upgrading. At least I know
> > what the problem is now, and that it will be a pain in the ass until I
> > upgrade.
> >
> > Thanks for your input.
> >
>
> Marc,
>
> I sincerely hope you get things working properly. I don't know much
> about Mac's, but I do know what a pain computer problems are.
>
> Once all is updated, you may find that your Web experience is better
> than ever. I hope that's the case.
>
> -Rich
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

body:
> From: jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 11:20:07 -0500
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)
>
> On 12/26/06, Ryan Wetherell <renardius at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/26/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/26/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> No, a source is only required for anything that is disputed. That's
>>> pretty fundamental, WP:V. Quite workable and highly desirable.
>>>
>>> Jay.
>>
>> And it goes above and beyond just WP.  Citations of claims,
>> inferences/conclusions/derived statements, and non-obvious factual
>> statements (that is, not common knowledge [taking the arbitrary nature
>> of "common knowledge" into consideration, of course]) are simply an
>> academic "must" if you aim to be taken seriously.  That's how I
>> interpret relevant Wikipedia policies, and how I apply them.
>
> That's the point; if Wikipedia is going to become a source of
> knowledge that is taken seriously, instead of being continually
> derided, its standards are going to be have to be high, rather than
> "it's ridiculous that I should have to cite all of my claims".]

Hello,

I would like to jump in here for a moment.

I have been editing in Wikipedia for nearly a year now, and have been
encouraging my colleagues (I?m a Clinical Psychologist) to do the same. The
one overriding criticism I have heard regarding the encyclopedia is that
anyone can edit it. For a clinician, student or any professional researcher
this can (and is) quite a deterrent to taking the substance of the material
found in Wikipedia seriously. With the existence of anonymous editors adding
supposedly substantive content, it is impossible to verify and, if wanted,
to challenge this material with the person that entered it.

There seems to be a great concern about having verifiable material ?sources?
in Wikipedia that can be checked; why not place at least as much importance
on the ?sources? (the editors) of the very material that is included? We
want to be able to check the reliability of the substance of the text, but
seem to place little importance on being able to check on who entered it in
the first place.

If I want to question the substance of an Article in Wikipedia, I should be
able to go to an editor?s personal information page and get a sense that
they have the expertise to be editing the material, and a page where I can
contact them with questions. Every, reputable reference work has this.

Marc Riddell

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

body:
> From: Gurch <matthew.britton at btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 17:31:30 +0000
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)
>
> Marc Riddell wrote:
>> If I want to question the substance of an Article in Wikipedia, I should be
>> able to go to an editor?s personal information page and get a sense that
>> they have the expertise to be editing the material, and a page where I can
>> contact them with questions. Every, reputable reference work has this.
>
> Every registered user has a page where they can be contacted with
> questions. Mine, for example, can be found at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gurch . Users are also permitted
> to set up personal information pages, though these have a wide variety
> of uses; mine is more a collection of navigational links for my own use
> than information about me. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gurch .
> Anonymous users can be contacted with questions in the same way, but
> since many of them share IP addresses and/or change IP addresses
> frequently, and having added information may not even check the site
> again for months, they may never see your question.
>
> If you want to question the substance of a particular article, though,
> it's best to use the article's discussion page rather than any
> particular user's discussion page. The part of the article that you wish
> to comment on may have been put together by dozens of different users,
> and singling out one isn't always the best way to get feedback.
>
> -Gurch

Gurch,

You are presenting to 'registered users'. How do you deal with a person who
edits and has no User Page, or one who has one but it is blank?

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


from_name: Timwi

body:
Rob Church wrote:
>
> As I explained in the email, I didn't do it because I wasn't sure that
> I had things set up right so that all sorts of hell wouldn't happen to
> the text in the interim.

I know. But I still think your reaction was discouraging. :-p

>>already done it. But stop discouraging non-developers, *ESPECIALLY*
>>translators, from contributing.
>
> I'm not trying to discourage anyone from contributing.

I know you're not trying to do that, but I think you're doing it
nonetheless.

> I am trying to encourage people, where possible, to place things in
> the "usual location", since it means their contribution is *less
> likely* to go "ignored".

I know all that. But if the "usual location" is too complex to use, it
is discouraging to know that the only (accepted) way to contribute is to
learn a lot of stuff you're not really interested in (such as, for
example, how to use BugZilla -- in all honesty, its UI is crap -- or
even something like diff, a command-line tool with no UI at all).

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

body:
Marc Riddell wrote:
> I did not mean to suggest that only 'experts' should be able to edit in WP.
> My suggestion is that those who are able to edit provide some clue as to
> their background and areas of interest that could lead a reasonable (yes. I
> used the word) person to accept what they have edited as credible.
>
>
OK then, this suggestion is only meaningful if you're talking about a
"may edit" bit, presumably set by admins upon receipt of - what? Does a
college sophomore have to send in physical proof of their major? Are
college freshmen never allowed to edit anything except Pokemon? :-) I
have no formal credentials in naval history, but my personal library is
larger and deeper than that of the local university, so I likely have
more and better citeable sources than a random nonspecialist history
professor at that university. On the other hand, maybe I have all these
books, but don't understand them, or as more commonly happens (to other
people :-) ), I've developed bizarre theories. What about professors who
develop bizarre theories that they can't get published, so they try to
push them into WP? Are they credible editors? Their background will
likely look pretty good.

In practice, what's more important to know is whether editors have
enough sense to know whether they are relying on sources they have, or
are adding material with no solid basis in fact. It's a behavioral thing
that no credential or bio bit helps me with, only past experience on WP.

Stan