from_name: Francis Tyers

body:
There is an ongoing request to allow the storage of references outside
the body text. This would make the view considerably less cluttered,
especially when using cite templates.

Requests have been filed in bugzilla.

Fran

On Mon, 2006-07-24 at 15:49 +0100, Oldak Quill wrote:
> On 24/07/06, maru dubshinki <marudubshinki at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't think specialists are the answer here; just like for
> > verifiability, this is too big a task to be feasible for a small group
> > of people, since just about every article could use a better
> > "structure". What is needed is a better general awareness, and perhaps
> > tools. For example, if the edit window is a part of the problem, then
> > why not have the window auto-resize to fit the screen, instead of a
> > fixed width and height? Or perhaps we could bring it to people's
> > attention that the size of the edit box is customizable? &etc.
>
> A few suggestions like these are floating around at the moment that
> may affect the edit screen. The whole <ref> and upcoming Semantic
> additions are leading to quite cluttered views. It has been suggested
> that we add syntax highlighting features including hiding some
> elements as per preferences (with options running from all WikiSyntax
> to just <ref>).
>
> I suggest an alternate "paragraph" view may be quite useful where the
> article appears as it does to the normal reader except the editor is
> able to drag blocks of text (paragraphs), infoboxes and images around
> and drop them where they are better suited. Perhaps they could then
> double click on one of these elements to edit it. This may lead to a
> rise in aesthetic and paragraphing editing which is needed. One
> problem is that it would probably take a lot of work.


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] So you think you can be a Wikipedia article

body:
On Jul 24, 2006, at 3:53 PM, Stan Shebs wrote:

> That's a nice fantasy, but nobody works for no reward at all. For
> instance, we reward random editors by letting their contributions
> appear on a top-20 website; editors who continually have all their
> edits reverted eventually get the hint and go away. If every policy
> I propose gets shot down or subverted, how long do you think I'm
> going to keep doing it?
>
> Stan

Apparently I'm satisfied if occasionally I make a point. But that's
politics everywhere.

Fred


from_name: Oldak Quill

subject: [WikiEN-l] Interesting "New Yorker" article about Wikipedia

body:
On 24/07/06, Arwel Parry <arwel at cartref.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I just found a very long and interesting article about Wikipedia on the
> "New Yorker" website ("KNOW IT ALL: Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?").
> Seems pretty fair, overall, lots of quotes including from Jimbo, Essjay,
> William Connolley...
>
> http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact

Just to note, someone has already started a discussion on this over at
Wikipedia-l:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-July/044836.html
--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: stevertigo

body:
> On 24/07/06, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
> > That's a nice fantasy, but nobody works for no reward at all. For
> > instance, we reward random editors by letting their contributions
> > appear on a top-20 website; editors who continually have all their
> > edits reverted eventually get the hint and go away. If every policy
> > I propose gets shot down or subverted, how long do you think I'm
> > going to keep doing it?

The point of leadership isnt the personal reward associated with authority,
its the ability to navigate though obstacles and handle disputes.
WP doesnt need a captain or an EIC, but it could benefit from having
a kind of editorial council.

--- Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:

> My point was that we don't want leaders who are leaders only because
> they enjoy the perks. Our current system ensures that our transient,
> changing leadership are those who want to do something for the
> project, or believe the project should have some feature or device.
> Institutionalised leadership tends lose sight of the project and be
> lazy.

I tend to agree, but again its besides the point. The association of
sysops with janitors has left sysops untrusted with actual decision power,
to resolve certain disputes. They wind up put in a place where their hands
are tied by the influx. Council members could be given authority to:

1) settle particularly clear POV and disputes flatly,
   including article deletion and material inclusion disputes.
2) make a judgement on particular a POV issue and apply it.
3) make direct article edits or else give specific article
   instructions which to follow.
4) with other members, they can build a record of how particular
   disputes are dealt with.

Of course this body should be reasonalby large, perhaps 30 members,
have all some serious skillz, and of course a dedication to and
experience with NPOV. The body needs to be large enough to have some
influence, have standards and review for membership, and yet it should
be small enough to require consensus among the council, and thus avoid
the direct that sysops get into.

They should use their authority sparingly, in particular to override
any collusion of newbie "consensus" which has been shown to be disruptive
element as WP has grown larger.

So an edit by a councilor* is supposed to get peoples attention,
as it corrects something which needs correcting. When compared
to the Arbcom, whos domain is largely ex-post fact punitivity,
this body should deal with the material application of NPOV,
and defer civility issues to the Arbcom.

-SV

* as opposed to a "counselor"

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


from_name: Stan Shebs

body:
Oldak Quill wrote:

>On 24/07/06, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
>
>>That's a nice fantasy, but nobody works for no reward at all. For
>>instance, we reward random editors by letting their contributions
>>appear on a top-20 website; editors who continually have all their
>>edits reverted eventually get the hint and go away. If every policy
>>I propose gets shot down or subverted, how long do you think I'm
>>going to keep doing it?
>>
>>Stan
>>
>
>I'm not saying there should be no reward. As you say, the reward is
>helping the project, getting a featured article, getting a policy
>through, or devising a new way to collaborate.
>
>My point was that we don't want leaders who are leaders only because
>they enjoy the perks. Our current system ensures that our transient,
>changing leadership are those who want to do something for the
>project, or believe the project should have some feature or device.
>Institutionalised leadership tends lose sight of the project and be
>lazy.
>
Your repeated references to "perks" are revealing; leadership is
not about the leader getting some kind of unfair advantage over
others, it's about getting groups of people to work together, rather
than at cross-purposes. Transient leadership is ineffective - think
of the Italian government - instead of working out compromises,
people who disagree simply wait for the leader to be gone and the
group to disperse, then undo everything that they accomplished. We
see this every day, in the endless circular arguments on notability,
verifiability, userboxes, fair use, capitalization of species names,
AfD, and on and on and on, which are in turn reflected in a continuous
churn of edits that never actually add any new content. We could be
a lot more effective at the ultimate goal if we actually encouraged
people to make tough decisions, then backed them up rather than
tore them down.

Stan


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Berto

subject: [Wikipedia-l] The New Yorker on Wikipedia

body:
>But despite the occasional cluelessness or error, there are some
>genuinely interesting bits in there, even for a hardened editor like
>meself:
>"Wattenberg and Vi?gas, of I.B.M., note that the vast majority of
>Wikipedia edits consist of deletions and additions rather than of
>attempts to reorder paragraphs or to shape an entry as a whole, and
>they believe that Wikipedia's twenty-five-line editing window deserves
>some of the blame."

Yeah... structure is an issue. Section edit makes it easy to work quick, but
it gives no general structure to the work.I guess we should have people
specialising in structuring voices for better readability.

B?rto


from_name: Philosophus

subject: [WikiEN-l] POV fork anyone? (coca cola)

body:
Steve Bennett <stevagewp at ...> writes:

>
> Hi,
>   I'm surprised no one else has noticed this one. We have an
> archetypical POV fork (see [[Wikipedia:POV fork]]) at [[The Coca-Cola
> Company]]. I was suspicious that it's so positive ("Corporate
> citizenship" and all the rest of it). It turns out all the criticism
> has been moved to [[Criticism of Coca-Cola]]. And to top it off, the
> criticism article isn't even linked from the main one!
>
> Anyone feel like investigating a bit? How did this come to be? I'd
> love a good conspiracy theory...
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at ...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>

I've been trying to fix this particular problem after I noticed this email. If
some of you who are discussing the more general issue here could also help with
the discussion and impending edit war on [[The Coca-Cola Company]], it would be
greatly appreciated. The NPOVing changes are meeting some resistance, and some
editors don't even want to allow {{POV}} tags in the article.

As for the more general issue, perhaps we need a new and more specific guideline
on this, or at least some changes to [[WP:POV fork]] to address the issue more
specifically?

Philosophus


from_name: Anthony

subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On 7/24/06, ScottL <scott at mu.org> wrote:
> > I agree with this to a large extent.  But I think when you write about
> > a work using only the work itself as a source you necessarily *do* put
> > forward this sort of synthesis.  Otherwise, what is the point of
> > mentioning the fact?
>
>    I have noticed you say this or something like it a few times.
> Throughout this thread you seem to be arguing that you cannot use a work
> as a source for itself.  But, every time someone points out an instance
> where you clearly can, you revert to "... write about a work using only
> the work itself as a source ....".  Which is your position?  I agree
> that is almost every case, you are right with the modified "only
> source".  It would not make much of an article if you simply said very
> shortly what happened and which characters where there etc. However,
> that is quite a different thing from using it as a source for individual
> facts--which characters where present in the first episode as compared
> to the last, how many seasons the show ran, etc--and using other sources
> for the other facts needed to make the article readable.
>
I'm saying that the work itself is the only source for that particular
fact.  If the work itself is the original source, but another source
mentions it, then that wouldn't qualify.

Anthony


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] Proposal for Formalized Extensions System

body:
Gregory Szorc wrote:
>> Please read my own proposal for reworking the extension interface at:
>>
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-July/037035.html
>>
>> Posted to this list 10 days ago.
>
>
> Forgive my ignorance.  I read the first few paragraphs of the post when it
> was originally sent and ignored the rest, just thinking it was another
> Wikipedia-only message.  Now, having read it...
>
> I do like your proposal for static objects being initialized as-needed.
> There is great power in the just-in-time object::getInstance() method.
> However, one of my criticisms of MediaWiki's architecture has always been
> the over dependence on global objects, which are in some ways like static
> classes using the Singleton pattern (see
> http://blog.case.edu/gps10/2006/07/22/why_global_variables_in_php_is_bad_programming_practicefor
> why I don't like global objects).  I would much rather see the Wiki
> class contain these "global objects" as static variables which can be
> accessed via a just-in-time getObject() static call to the Wiki class.  This
> sounds like the same approach as the proposed wfGetFoo() methods (it
> basically is), but polluting the global symbol table with objects and
> functions not belonging to classes is unecessary when these could all belong
> to a master Wiki class.  If you don't buy the "don't do it because you'd be
> polluting the symbol table" argument, do it for the sake of keeping
> everything organized into classes.  Do wfGetFoo() functions really belong in
> the global namespace, or do they belong to a class representing a wiki?
> Hell, if you get rid of all the global functions and attach them to existing
> classes, that is one less file to include!  </rant on global objects>

I'll answer this at the end.

> If you are talking about 500us, why are there still require and require_once
> calls in the trunk?  These both require system calls (require_once actually
> requires an additional one and hence is slower).  I know work has been done
> developing the __autoload function (if you ever commit to 5.1,
> spl_autoload_register() is preferred), but at the level of commitment you
> give to performance, every require_once has to seem like a monkey on your
> back.

I got rid of about half of the require_once calls from Setup.php in
localisation-work. The remaining ones are mostly for global functions.

> Also, how do you accurately profile MediaWiki?  I've used xdebug and
> Kcachegrind to profile scripts before, but it always bothers me because I
> cannot use xdebug alongside APC or eaccelerator to get results reflective of
> my production deployment.  I know APC and eaccelerator completely change the
> chokepoints, but it is impossible for me to see what the new chokepoints
> are!

http://noc.wikimedia.org/cgi-bin/report.py

Data is generated with ProfilerSimpleUDP. Averaging over a million requests
gives you excellent accuracy, thanks to the central limit theorem. However,
that data may be subject to slight systemic inaccuracies due to the
profiling overhead.

> Can you feed MediaWiki's internal profiling output into Kcachegrind?

No.

> Now, getting back to the topic of extensions.  For a base extension class, I
> was thinking of an abstract class that has numerous methods,
> providesSpecialPage(), providesHook(), providesWhichHooks(),
> providesParserTags(), etc.  Let's say we establish a defined extensions root
> directory.  When MediaWiki loads, it periodically checks this directory for
> all files representing extensions and loads them (perhaps this is triggered
> manually via CRON, Special Page, filemtime(), etc).  When the extensions are
> loaded from the directory, a map is established that records the abilities
> of each.  This map is serialized for quick retrieval.  Whenever MediaWiki
> loads, it just goes to the map and loads extensions just-in-time.  This
> would require an extension manager class that would initialize extensions as
> called for by the map.  For example, when the parser sees a tag it doesn't
> recognize, it would go
> ExtensionManager::getExtensionForParserTag($foo)->parse($content);  Or, when
> a special page is called, we have
> ExtensionManager::executeSpecialPage($foo);  For hooks, the same deal.
>
> I like the idea for a map between capabilities and callbacks, etc, but I
> don't like the idea of a module specification file.  Why should you need to
> provide a specification file when the same information can be obtained from
> methods inherited from a base extension class?  As long as you cache the
> output of these methods, there is zero performance overhead and extensions
> have the added bonus of being much more structured.  Yes, it would break
> existing functionality.  But if you are already talking about making
> just-in-time calls to instantiate global objects like $wgTitle, $wgOut, etc,
> then many existing extensions will be broken anyway.  Sometimes you just
> have to make sacrifices for the sake of progress.

You obviously also missed my post on stub globals. After I made the first
post, I discovered a method for painless migration to deferred object
initialisation, and I made that the topic of a second post. I share your
concerns about the flexibility of global variables, in fact my discussion of
the issue in phase3/docs/globals.txt mirrors your blog post very closely.
But there doesn't seem to be any pressing need to sacrifice backwards
compatibility while we pursue this goal. But a singleton object shares all
the flexibilty problems of global variables, so that's not a solution.

You make a good point about the fact that capabilities can be provided by a
member function and cached. There's still no need to sacrifice backwards
compatibility though, that I can see. We can keep both the ability of
extensions to operate across multiple MediaWiki versions, and the ability
for most old extensions to continue to work properly in new versions of
MediaWiki, if we design the interface carefully enough. If backwards
compatibility for old extensions proves to be too much of a performance
burden, then we can drop it after a couple of releases. What I want to avoid
is the requirement that extensions be simultaneously updated along with the
core. That's a hassle for both site administrators and extension developers.
Especially since many extensions are unreleased, their versions unnumbered.

-- Tim Starling


subject: [WikiEN-l] Uploading images should be a privilige, not a right

body:
On 7/24/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/24/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > >1) It is ethically questionable. When we distribute someone's
> > >commercial work tagged as free content, we risk seriously letting the
> > >genie out of the bottle. It would do us no good to gain a napster-like
> > >reputation.
> > >
> > What makes it unethical?  Is it any more ethical to deprive people of
> > due process if they can make a reasonable legal case.  This is not a
> > matter of agreeing to every stupid argument that comes along.  This has
> > nothing to do with genies or Napster.
>
> There is nothing unethical about removing content from our site which
> is in clear violation. Submitters of content are not entitled to due
> process. Wikipedia is not a courtroom.
>
> It is, however, clearly unethical to distribute the copyrighted
> content of others without their authorization.
>
Even if you're not doing so intentionally?  Even if you're just
providing a place for people to communicate, and you tell them not to
upload copyrighted content, and you remove any copyrighted content
that you find?  In order to be ethical you have to lock down the
system so that copyright violations are impossible?  I don't think I
can agree with that.  In fact, I know I can't agree with that.

> > >In short, while being a nice legal fall-back, the safe harbor terms
> > >are not anything we want to rely on in terms of our copyright policy.
> > >
> > It's not merely a fall back, but a first step in arriving at a formal
> > decision.  When a properly composed notice is issued we must remove the
> > offending material.
>
> It seems to me that you've forgotten that one of the two primary goals
> of Wikipedia is to provide Free Content.  We have failed at that goal
> when our site contains a huge number of copyright violations waiting
> for their DMCA notice to come in...
>
> So while it is necessary that we remove content once properly noticed,
> it is not sufficient for us to wait for that to happen.

It's unclear to me what Ray Saintonge is suggesting, so I won't speak
for him.  But I would like to clarify that I personally do not believe
that Wikipedia should only take down content when a DMCA notice comes
in.  In fact, I think the standards for inclusion should be much
*more* restrictive than just what is allowed by law.

My response was to someone who was suggesting that locking down the
site so that people can't even upload free content without having
gained the privilege is necessary to "keep WP out of legal peril".  If
locking down the site helps Wikipedia create the best free
encyclopedia, then I'm all for it.  I haven't been convinced that it
would.  And arguments that not locking down the site would put WP into
legal peril are certainly not going to convince me otherwise.

Anthony


list: foundation-l

from_name: Luiz Augusto

subject: [Foundation-l] Help requested on Commons copyright woes

body:
On 7/20/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I originally posted this to the commons-l list (
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2006-June/000277.html )
> to little response. So let's see if I can do any better with a wider
> audience.
>
> (...)

* "Agencia Brasil" license  (
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Ag%C3%AAncia_Brasil ) also
> has been debated several times. Related to the wider issue of, "if a
> website says "these images can be used freely, can we interpret that
> as allowing commercial use and derivative works, and thus
> Commons-compliant? Or do we need to check each time whether they
> intend to allow these specific rights?"

Agencia Brasil has changed your site license in 7 July 2006. Anything from
agenciabrasil.gov.br, including images, videos and text, are now under a
CC-by 2.5 Brazil license


list: wikimedia-l


list: textbook-l

from_name: Karl Wick

subject: [Textbook-l] PediaPress

body:
Here is a website where folks can purchase printed books based on Wikipedia
content:

http://pediapress.com/

Currently featured books include: Quantum
Mechanics<http://pediapress.com/showbook/dcchcaruqoqeqfro/>,
Big Science <http://pediapress.com/showbook/pcfyakskyfnqnigc/>, 3D Computer
Graphics <http://pediapress.com/showbook/uidrpqgpwhpwilvl/>, and
Econometrics <http://pediapress.com/showbook/irbexhnsmymhjbxw/>.

Note that on the info page they admit that they may not be in full
compliance with the GNU FDL, and that it seems to be so new that there is no
Wikipedia article about it.

Comments?

Karl


from_name: Jimmy Wales

body:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
> On 24/07/06, Dirk Riehle <dirk at riehle.org> wrote:
>> The observation itself I find interesting. Would you agree or
>> disagree that the number of leading women in Wikipedia is
>> disproportionaly larger in comparison to the overall Wikipedia
>> contributor population?
>
> First you have to agree on a definition of a contributor. Having a
> username? Having at least one edit? Or at least 50, 100, 500? (So,
> count anons?) Having some level of community interaction beyond
> OrphanBot warnings?

Speaking at a very high level of generality, and noting that questions
of definition are important, and acknowledging that I have no good clear
definition in mind...

It is my anecdotal sense based on wikipedia meetups and interactions
online that about 80% of Wikipedians are male, that this number is
better than most free software projects, but worse than I think most of
us would like, and that the leadership of the projects tends to be much
more heavily female than the averages would suggest.

We have many strong female leaders in various projects.  I leave it to
others to speculate why this might be. :)

--Jimbo


from_name: Domas Mituzas

body:
Hi!

> So what is this warning, straight from xdebug's site about:
Warnings? Who reads warnings?

> Xdebug does not work together with the Zend Optimizer or any other
> Zend
> extension (DBG, APC, APD etc). This is due to compatibility
> problems with
> those modules. We will be working on figuring out what the problems
> are, and
> of course try to fix those.

Actually I loaded it as regular extension, not zend extension. It
complained about that, but profiling worked, and that was what I
needed. Of course, karma matters too.

--
Domas Mituzas -- http://dammit.lt/ -- [[user:midom]]


from_name: Tels

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

Moin,

On Monday 24 July 2006 02:58, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> In case anyone hasn't noticed, the number of MediaWiki extensions in
> existence has soared in the previous year.  They are scattered all around
> the internet and it is a chore to make sure all of your extensions are up
> to date.

Thanx for the list of  cool ideas. I can't comment to much on them,
especialyl the "turn-it-into-a-class" parts.

As for the distribution, upload, update etc: I do think what you need is a
CPAN for mediawiki extensions. See http://search.cpan.org as example.

(Yes, my extensions are released there for a lack of a better place to put
them in).

CPAN makes it easy index, package, upload, search and download (perl)
packages. And if the packages are done right (which CPAN testers ensure),
you can even automatically unpack, build and test them. (even if the package
doesn't actually contain a Perl package :-D

In fact, I thin instead of reinventing CPAN, it could be just (ab-?) used.
Well, actually I already used it :)

See http://search.cpan.org/~tels/mediawiki-graph/ :)

Updating all installed extensions could then be done by a very lightweight
PHP script which simple fetches the latest version from CPAN and tests and
installs it.

Of course, the maintainers of CPAN would probably want to hear of this
before 100+ non-perl packages hit their server :)

Best wishes,

Tels

- --
 Signed on Mon Jul 24 18:08:57 2006 with key 0x93B84C15.
 Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/
 PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.

 "I intend to live forever, or die trying." -- Groucho Marx
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iQEVAwUBRMTyAXcLPEOTuEwVAQJwAQf/Qtp0OBlW2t2D9RJvFHDiMUXr7FEi38SZ
bED8BUnMKEe6nMU4XQlxfna9ua1oHb5VYfnITkZinFGFVehZgVgqfmtOtUIB6gce
wmuWFJGN6GlbCT+tZhdCFK1sac4Se9M+w5pJCs5q16scBrwi5QMMUBn4WVhCSqp0
rA20teMkxU75Vk6yJ/1DoFz8wrdpsn6bH3VPuVnbLzRdq7fBQdwXga+SCs2KcwPf
+gZpnpNmDdTnLEZK+TgZqG6+c3nLnz/m9tk7UDEUxbdku3epZ1kBRl57e3nEjYru
bMptDVjecmOQKmtlpVYU86kgKWomTP1Q9N/H9KaaCx2q/WLbUx3F4A==
=MEVE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Edward Z. Yang

subject:
[Wikitech-l] PHP/MediaWiki Programmer Needed for Security
	Modeling Project

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

ericlewisii at aim.com wrote:
> We have budget to add threat modeling capabilities to the MediaWiki
> which could be used for lots of other modeling tasks.

Just a note, this work is already ongoing with LiquidThreads.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFExUm4qTO+fYacSNoRAs+iAJ9GWt42owzLImsH8pgNj3Pq4vEWaACfRKqt
Z5QozZ1YGPMoCFegJwADB0k=
=acAN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Brianna Laugher wrote:

>On 22/07/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>Why?  None of these are cut and dry.  If we limit ourselves to only
>>>the images that are zero risk we would have a LOT less content... and
>>>we'd have to reject a lot which will be free for all meaningful
>>>purposes.     When it comes down to it, most of these things can only
>>>be decided in a court, and courts rule in strage ways.    An official
>>>statement by the foundation would be risky and without much gain...
>>>after all, what would a statement really accomplish that we couldn't?
>>>
>>>
>>Individual responsibility!  Otherwise there are problems at both ends of
>>the scale.
>>
>>
>The cases I have mentioned are not about uploaders who don't care
>about copyright. They're about good uploaders who don't happen to be
>aware of every nook and cranny of copyright of every country whose
>laws might apply to their images. They are being as responsible as
>they know how. Who would've thought a statue in the public might not
>be allowed to be photographed?
>
This depends on the country where the statue is located.  In Canada this
is specifically permitted in subsection 32.2(1) of the Copyright Act for
statues on permanent exhibit.

>Who would've thought a PHOTO of a
>pokemon toy (not the toy itself) would be copyrighted? Who would've
>thought a Flickr user whose photo says CC-BY didn't really mean it, as
>it turns out? etc.
>
The issue here is whether a grant of a license is revocable.

>So IMO this doesn't have a lot to do with uploaders.
>
Infringement is an act.  It has to do with uploaders because they are
the ones who know the circumstances about the origin of what they upload.

Ec


body:
Brianna Laugher wrote:

>On 22/07/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>WMF would probably do best to distance itself from these issues.  It has
>>too much to lose from a wrong decision.  The fundamental premise should
>>be that the uploader of material has the primary responsibility for
>>establishing the copyright status of what he provides.  At the same time
>>it needs to safeguard its founding principle that it is providing an
>>free access resource.  I certainly have ideas for attempting to
>>reconcile these concepts, but I'll save them for another time.
>>
>>
>Well, the thing is, a huge part of Commons' role is to play Media
>Copyright Police. And as this thread has shown it is really, really,
>hard.
>
I agree.  The unfortunate danger with playing any kind of police is in
developing a police mentality.

>The same issues keep coming up again and again, no satisfactory
>results, it's like arguing with windmills. Having the same debates
>again and again is very weary-making.
>
Absolutely, but it's also unavoidable.  There are always new people who
have never participated in these debates before.  How do we let them
know that their opinions matter.

>It's easy enough to upload at
>Commons then forget about it, but each project is only as strong as
>its weakest link, and then it comes to copyright, that could well be
>Commons.
>
I see no difficulty in having each project develop its own policies
about copyright, and how much it will allow.  The important thing is
that there remain an essential respect for the rights of the copyright
owners.

>So this thread is me asking for help. Is it not the WMF's
>role to support and help its projects?
>
I can sympathize with your position.  The answer to your question is
clearly "Yes."  But that help should not extend to making the decisions
that each project should be making for itself.

Ec


from_name: SPUI

subject: [WikiEN-l] Categories for deletion/discussion issues

references:
<44BFFC89.4050602@gmail.com>	<v371c25v1ogtqc3lg9io7ouoslunibu3rm@4ax.com>	<44C0DA22.7010101@gmail.com>	<5r22c2lloamb9tnmirb5bbiecoijgqau5p@4ax.com>	<44C1205A.60401@gmail.com>	<rcc2c2tucivskf153iojiohrjoame3bkq2@4ax.com>	<44C142F1.5050502@gmail.com>	<dh74c21cg2v6bh13j5qtdaa439pnlqu38l@4ax.com>	<44C254B3.2080608@gmail.com>	<4k95c2hlb233blv58k743klg8r2k3mon0v@4ax.com>	<44C3E0D2.4030706@gmail.com>	<e4q7c2ds2hv4iiq60qvatjvpak3uvjs6g8@4ax.com>	<44C40BE5.5000505@gmail.com>
	<lg6ac21k756onj5nmme6e62u4j4fc4jl4q@4ax.com>

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 19:53:09 -0400, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I've already explained that limited-access highway is ambiguous.
>
> No, you've named a single place which uses an unusual definition of
> limited-access road, which has no obvious parallels outside the US.
> Once again, The US <> The World.

Who is to say which definition is unusual?


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikisource poem extension - but the intro text?

body:
habj wrote:
> What is the solution here, for the wikis that do not already have these
> elaborate templates? One could do some wiki-specific adaptation to the poem
> tag, so that it adds blank spaces above the poem - that is however not so
> nifty when there actually is no "intro". Should we ask to get another
> semantic tag for the intro? Or is templates, like at English Wikisource, the
> major solution?

To my eyes, the simplest thing is to adjust the style for the <poem> tag to make
it more distinct. The default doesn't enforce any special appearance, but in
most cases people probably would want them.

For instance, in MediaWiki:Common.css one could add:

.poem {
  margin-left: 1in;
}

which will indent all <poem> sections. Borders, backgrounds, font styles etc
could also be used here. Even just indentation should be plenty to set off poem
text from surrounding intro text pretty well.

It's also possible to use templates or something to make a special introduction
style, but IMHO that's probably not necessary.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060724/01071a90/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Brianna Laugher

body:
Nice. But "80 percent of users are male", where was the figure plucked
from exactly?

cheers,
Brianna


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

Brion Vibber wrote:
> That's *thread*ed discussions, not *threat* modeling.

Ah.... my bad! /threat/thread/

> I haven't the slightest idea what threat modeling has to do with MediaWiki, though.

After rereading, I believe that, in its essence, they're trying to
expand the "wiki" idea from plain old content to semantic data,
networks, etc.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFExVwSqTO+fYacSNoRAteXAKCIIAxWwBotH/BOm3WtmnQ6k3UyngCfXAsA
+u4Xb68LdOWowqZ+hNR6oiA=
=lOP/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 23:52:21 -0700, ScottL <scott at mu.org> wrote:

>However, an article on a fictional work is not a literary critique,
>it has some of that in it.   However in this case it is an encyclopedia
>article and depending on the work may include a lot more, some of which
>are facts that can (only?) be verified from the original work.

If there are no secondary sources I'd say it was unencyclopaedic
anyway.  Mind you, for my money we'd have a single one-paragraph
article on the entire subject of Pok?mon...

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


references:
<44BFFC89.4050602@gmail.com>	<v371c25v1ogtqc3lg9io7ouoslunibu3rm@4ax.com>	<44C0DA22.7010101@gmail.com>	<5r22c2lloamb9tnmirb5bbiecoijgqau5p@4ax.com>	<44C1205A.60401@gmail.com>	<rcc2c2tucivskf153iojiohrjoame3bkq2@4ax.com>	<44C142F1.5050502@gmail.com>	<dh74c21cg2v6bh13j5qtdaa439pnlqu38l@4ax.com>	<44C254B3.2080608@gmail.com>	<4k95c2hlb233blv58k743klg8r2k3mon0v@4ax.com>	<44C3E0D2.4030706@gmail.com>
	<e4q7c2ds2hv4iiq60qvatjvpak3uvjs6g8@4ax.com>
	<44C40BE5.5000505@gmail.com>

body:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 19:53:09 -0400, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:

>I've already explained that limited-access highway is ambiguous.

No, you've named a single place which uses an unusual definition of
limited-access road, which has no obvious parallels outside the US.
Once again, The US <> The World.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Richard Holton

body:
On 7/24/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> > On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 19:53:09 -0400, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>I've already explained that limited-access highway is ambiguous.
> >
> > No, you've named a single place which uses an unusual definition of
> > limited-access road, which has no obvious parallels outside the US.
> > Once again, The US <> The World.
>
> Who is to say which definition is unusual?

I'd say that definition is unusual, even in the US. In common usage, a
limited-access highway is a divided highway, with no cross roads--instead
using on & off ramps.

The USGS offers this common-sense definition:
Limited Access Highway: A route that is part of the United States Interstate
Highway System or other similar expressway.
(http://www-atlas.usgs.gov/metadata/roadtrl020.faq.html)

In fact, "expressway" seems like a good synonym (to my very US-centric
ears).

In any case, find a category name that seems to work, then add specifics to
the definition on the category page. This hardly seems like a battle worth
fighting.

Rich Holton
[[W:en:User:Rholton]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 7/22/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Definitely a constructive approach.  Can we read something into the fact
>>that all the heavy discussion in this thread has focussed on only one of
>>the four areas outlined in the essay?
>>
>>
>Yes. It's apparently very difficult to define the problem with
>fictional universes, besides the fact that people are biased against
>them. I, too, am biased against them, but can't find many decent
>reasons for that.
>
Maybe many of us are just plain ambiguous  about these pop-culture
related topics.  At the same time I was heartened by the thread about
the Australian newspaper that praised Wikipedia for its work in this
area.  I confess that when I am being the passive user I am more likely
to use Wikipedia as a first choice to find out about pop-culture
questions than about almost any other subject.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 14:00:51 +0200, "Steve Bennett"
><stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It's apparently very difficult to define the problem with
>>fictional universes, besides the fact that people are biased against
>>them.
>>
>>
>I know at least one major problem: the lack of objective external
>coverage.
>
In Wikipedia or elsewhere?

You can't trust the fan sites.  And there's so much being produced that
it's difficult for even a site that limits itself to one genre to keep
up.  We have chosen to comprehensively attempt a documentation of all
genres to the point where many would see us as leading the pack in such
things.  Other, more "serious" subjects are still doing respectably
well, but our greatest success is in what many people see as trivial.
We still demand NPOV on these articles, but can be more relaxed about
original research. The good secondary material is just not there, and
you don't maintain a lead by waiting for other sites or books to put
something decent together.

Ec


body:
SPUI wrote:

>Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 12:39:15 -0400, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'm arguing that we should not use a term that has different meanings in
>>>different places.
>>>
>>>
>>So instead you prefer a term which has *no* meaning in *most* places?
>>
>>
>Yes, because its meaning is consistent. [[Category:Elevators]] includes
>lifts.
>
Why aren't grain elevators included in the category?

Ec


body:
On 24/07/06, Dirk Riehle <dirk at riehle.org> wrote:
> As an anecdote, when I asked for representatives of the major
> Wikipedias to be interviewed for the How and Why Wikipedia Works
> interview (
> http://www.riehle.org/computer-science/research/2006/wikisym-2006-interview.html
> ) I only got women's names. Must have to do with the inborn shyness
> of males to promote themselves.

Er, what? As opposed to women's innate abillity to brag? Since when
are men typically shy?

Sample size of 3 doesn't tell you much except about those three people.

Brianna


from_name: ScottL

body:
>> My point was that we don't want leaders who are leaders only because
>> they enjoy the perks. Our current system ensures that our transient,
>> changing leadership are those who want to do something for the
>> project, or believe the project should have some feature or device.
>> Institutionalised leadership tends lose sight of the project and be
>> lazy.
>
> I tend to agree, but again its besides the point. The association of
> sysops with janitors has left sysops untrusted with actual decision power,
> to resolve certain disputes. They wind up put in a place where their hands
> are tied by the influx. Council members could be given authority to:
>
> 1) settle particularly clear POV and disputes flatly,
>    including article deletion and material inclusion disputes.
> 2) make a judgement on particular a POV issue and apply it.
> 3) make direct article edits or else give specific article
>    instructions which to follow.
> 4) with other members, they can build a record of how particular
>    disputes are dealt with.
>
> Of course this body should be reasonalby large, perhaps 30 members,
> have all some serious skillz, and of course a dedication to and
> experience with NPOV. The body needs to be large enough to have some
> influence, have standards and review for membership, and yet it should
> be small enough to require consensus among the council, and thus avoid
> the direct that sysops get into.
>
> They should use their authority sparingly, in particular to override
> any collusion of newbie "consensus" which has been shown to be disruptive
> element as WP has grown larger.
>
> So an edit by a councilor* is supposed to get peoples attention,
> as it corrects something which needs correcting. When compared
> to the Arbcom, whos domain is largely ex-post fact punitivity,
> this body should deal with the material application of NPOV,
> and defer civility issues to the Arbcom.
>
> -SV
>
> * as opposed to a "counselor"

   I have long felt that something like this would be the only way to
get decent versions of a number of very contentious articles.  But, when
you compare the "sort of government" that would imply compared to the
present system which is some sort of mildly democratic anarchy with very
occasional intervention by a monarch, I can't see the system emerging.
I think it would alienate far to large a segment of the community and
probably do more damage than good achieved.

Dalf


references:
<54f6f2050607201453q7dadfa66q5e192a5906e69a35@mail.gmail.com>	<44BFFC89.4050602@gmail.com>	<v371c25v1ogtqc3lg9io7ouoslunibu3rm@4ax.com>	<44C0DA22.7010101@gmail.com>	<5r22c2lloamb9tnmirb5bbiecoijgqau5p@4ax.com>	<44C1205A.60401@gmail.com>	<rcc2c2tucivskf153iojiohrjoame3bkq2@4ax.com>	<44C142F1.5050502@gmail.com>	<dh74c21cg2v6bh13j5qtdaa439pnlqu38l@4ax.com>	<44C254B3.2080608@gmail.com>	<4k95c2hlb233blv58k743klg8r2k3mon0v@4ax.com>	<44C3E0D2.4030706@gmail.com>	<e4q7c2ds2hv4iiq60qvatjvpak3uvjs6g8@4ax.com>
	<44C40BE5.5000505@gmail.com>

body:
SPUI wrote:

>Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 16:49:22 -0400, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>So instead you prefer a term which has *no* meaning in *most* places?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Yes, because its meaning is consistent. [[Category:Elevators]] includes
>>>lifts.
>>>
>>>
>>[[WP:NBD]].  My kids know what an elevator is, they don't know what a
>>freeway is.  Given that the words for this type of road in just about
>>every other language I can think of translate to "motor road" or
>>"motor way" perhaps that would be the least ambiguous thing.  But
>>limited-access highway, or restricted access highway, is also
>>unambiguous without carrying the usual overtones of America = The
>>World, per the World Series etc.
>>
>>
>I've already explained that limited-access highway is ambiguous.
>
I don't see what's ambiguous about the term.

Ec


from_name: George Herbert

body:
On 7/24/06, maru dubshinki <marudubshinki at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/24/06, Berto <albertoserra at ukr.net> wrote:
> > >But despite the occasional cluelessness or error, there are some
> > >genuinely interesting bits in there, even for a hardened editor like
> > >meself:
> > >"Wattenberg and Vi?gas, of I.B.M., note that the vast majority of
> > >Wikipedia edits consist of deletions and additions rather than of
> > >attempts to reorder paragraphs or to shape an entry as a whole, and
> > >they believe that Wikipedia's twenty-five-line editing window deserves
> > >some of the blame."
> >
> > Yeah... structure is an issue. Section edit makes it easy to work quick, but
> > it gives no general structure to the work.I guess we should have people
> > specialising in structuring voices for better readability.
>
> I don't think specialists are the answer here; just like for
> verifiability, this is too big a task to be feasible for a small group
> of people, since just about every article could use a better
> "structure". What is needed is a better general awareness, and perhaps
> tools. For example, if the edit window is a part of the problem, then
> why not have the window auto-resize to fit the screen, instead of a
> fixed width and height? Or perhaps we could bring it to people's
> attention that the size of the edit box is customizable? &etc.

Better general awareness and a focus on rewriting to improve flow and
consistent tone would be a darn good start.  But I agree that the
tools don't help right now.

I would second the auto-resize edit window screen.  I flip up and down
to the preview all the time, but the end result of the current tools
is that it encourages a lot of small edits rather than a good, overall
review and well-visualized update throughout.

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


from_name: Oldak Quill

body:
On 24/07/06, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
> To be a little more constructive :-), I see the leadership vacuum
> too. I think there are many editors who would like to lead in one
> way or another, in fact many of them are on this mailing list at
> least partly in the hopes of exerting some influence.

I think the lack of leadership is good. It promotes community
involvement and it proves to new users that they can help in a big
way.

> But I don't think there's a whole lot of incentive or reward for
> leadership, so attempts tend to be brief and unsuccessful. Even if
> one manages to organize several like-minded editors into a
> cooperative effort, the newest of newbies can still come in and
> disrupt, oftentimes with the support of onlookers shrieking about
> cabals, and the would-be leader sees his/her investment in WP come
> to naught. It's as if you were to get elected as prime minister,
> but any recent immigrant could unilaterally nullify any action you
> took and blacken your name in the papers - who would even bother to
> run for the position?

I see the equality between the old boys and the newbies as one of
Wikipedia's greatest assets for the reasons I state above. It prevents
anyone from becoming over-mighty and abusing their power and damaging
Wikipedia. Leaders shouldn't come to the job because of the perks and
benefits - they should fight for it because they truly want it and
believe in the project.

> WP's anarchy doesn't always work in the service of the goal of
> producing the free encyclopedia, but with so many anarchists
> ideologically committed to working against effective governance,
> it's hard even to discuss how the situation might be changed for
> the better.

A bigger priority, IMO, is making the Foundation more democratic and
answerable to the community while also preventing momentary trends and
fads from destroying the project (such as might occur if the
Foundation were too democratic).

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


body:
On 24/07/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> My response was to someone who was suggesting that locking down the
> site so that people can't even upload free content without having
> gained the privilege is necessary to "keep WP out of legal peril".  If
> locking down the site helps Wikipedia create the best free
> encyclopedia, then I'm all for it.  I haven't been convinced that it
> would.  And arguments that not locking down the site would put WP into
> legal peril are certainly not going to convince me otherwise.

IMO, if this were done it wouldn't really be Wikipedia any more.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: maru dubshinki

body:
On 7/24/06, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23/07/06, stevertigo <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > --- Peter Ansell <ansell.peter at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Why don't more people focus on the core policies like verfiability
> > > more when they attempt to address so called "notability" issues? :)
> >
> > Because Wikipedia has no leadership. It has 1000 sysops who are just "janitors"
> > according to the dominant view, no editorial core, and a founder who has had
> > argued enough with trolls and has gone wandering off into the land of politics.
> >
> > SV
> >
>
> No management expert will ever tell you that a group of 1000 people
> will ever get anywhere in strategy terms very fast. It is simply too
> large to facilitate effective communication and quick agreement on
> issues. As you say, there is a core community group missing. There is
> the board and related personnel at the top (aka, OFFICE) , followed by
> a small group of judges(aka, bcrats) who dont make policy so much as
> rule on it, and then there are the so called "janitors" (aka, sysops).
>
> Following the highly successful national model with Cabinet, Courts,
> and Parliament, it is the parliament that is missing. Right now, and
> possibly from the wiki culture, the parliament is traditionally the
> whole community with anyone who wants to have a say being able to do
> so. I would contend that the size of such a parliament is limited in
> its ability to make effective decisions.
>
> The current heirarchy does not place any special policy related
> privileges on the sysop layer, and I am not about to say that it
> should, but in ignoring the Parliament layer it is missing an
> essential branch in the proven three prong, "separation of powers"
> model.
>
> Peter Ansell

Wouldn't any democracy-variant simply invite even more sock-puppeting?
I think perhaps voting through one's edits is the only feasible
method, as edits require effort and so put up a barrier to entry
(which in the real world is supplied by the minor barrier that one
cannot easily replicate oneself).  Which is essentially what we
already do.

~maru


subject: [WikiEN-l] technical Issue with Firefox 2.0 beta

body:
On 7/24/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25/07/06, Mark Ryan <ultrablue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > What language spell checker is it? What's the bet it's just American
> > English. Hooray.
>
> Probably, but this is better than nothing. There must be third-party
> tools which do this already?
> --
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)

There are plenty of methods, like Aspellfox, but they all have some
sort of problem (spellbound is hard to set up and fragile, Aspellfox
doesn't let words be saved, etc. And almost all require some sort of
manual invocation). With any luck, the configuration willl let you
specify a dictionary (this is probably more feasible for *nix
users...); actually, I would be very surprised if the spellchecker
didn't let one do that.

~maru
for the curious, I use View Source With and have it call emacs, which
itself has a hook to run flyspell/ispell.


body:
On 24/07/06, Dirk Riehle <dirk at riehle.org> wrote:
>
> The observation itself I find interesting. Would you agree or
> disagree that the number of leading women in Wikipedia is
> disproportionaly larger in comparison to the overall Wikipedia
> contributor population?

First you have to agree on a definition of a contributor. Having a
username? Having at least one edit? Or at least 50, 100, 500? (So,
count anons?) Having some level of community interaction beyond
OrphanBot warnings?

Does a leading contributor necessarily participate in formal
structures, hold admin status, collect barnstars, vote on polls &
requests, write on mailing lists?

So many unanswered questions!

Brianna


from_name: NSLE (Wikipedia)

body:
I'm glad I still subscribe to EN-l despite having left the project. It is an
interesting read, especially how they covered Wiki-politics. Full credit to
them, I think that sums up Wikipedia quite well. Quite shocked at Essjay
putting FOURTEEN hours a day in though, heh. Good read.

--NSLE

On 7/24/06, Arwel Parry <arwel at cartref.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I just found a very long and interesting article about Wikipedia on the
> "New Yorker" website ("KNOW IT ALL: Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?").
> Seems pretty fair, overall, lots of quotes including from Jimbo, Essjay,
> William Connolley...
>
> http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact
>
> --
> Arwel Parry
> http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On 24/07/06, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
> That's a nice fantasy, but nobody works for no reward at all. For
> instance, we reward random editors by letting their contributions
> appear on a top-20 website; editors who continually have all their
> edits reverted eventually get the hint and go away. If every policy
> I propose gets shot down or subverted, how long do you think I'm
> going to keep doing it?
>
> Stan

I'm not saying there should be no reward. As you say, the reward is
helping the project, getting a featured article, getting a policy
through, or devising a new way to collaborate.

My point was that we don't want leaders who are leaders only because
they enjoy the perks. Our current system ensures that our transient,
changing leadership are those who want to do something for the
project, or believe the project should have some feature or device.
Institutionalised leadership tends lose sight of the project and be
lazy.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


body:
On 24/07/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> We have many strong female leaders in various projects.  I leave it to
> others to speculate why this might be. :)

/me gets out his "Dummies Guide to Freud"

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


body:
NSLE (Wikipedia) wrote:

>I'm glad I still subscribe to EN-l despite having left the project. It is an
>interesting read, especially how they covered Wiki-politics. Full credit to
>them, I think that sums up Wikipedia quite well. Quite shocked at Essjay
>putting FOURTEEN hours a day in though, heh. Good read.
>
Interesting article. I was taken aback by "To his knowledge, he [Essjay]
has never met another Wikipedian, and he will not be attending
Wikimania, the second international gathering of the encyclopedia?s
contributors, which will take place in early August in Boston." Was he
putting the guy on. :-D

The most important observation: "Peer review, the mainstream media, and
government agencies have landed us in a ditch. Not only are we impatient
with the authorities but we are in a mood to talk back."

Ec


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-07-25

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

Running test Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)... FAILED!
Running test Template with thumb image (wiht link in description)... FAILED!
Running test message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test Language converter: output gets cut off unexpectedly (bug 5757)... FAILED!
Running test HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test Parsing optional HTML elements (Bug 6171)... FAILED!
Running test Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting... FAILED!
Running test Mixing markup for italics and bold... FAILED!
Running test 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line... FAILED!
Running test HTML Hex character encoding.... FAILED!
Running test dt/dd/dl test... FAILED!

Passed 409 of 426 tests (96.01%) FAILED!


from_name: SonOfYoungwood at aol.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
In a message dated 7/24/2006 11:43:15 PM Central Standard Time,
saintonge at telus.net writes:

You  can't trust the fan sites.  And there's so much being produced that
it's difficult for even a site that limits itself to one genre to keep
up.  We have chosen to comprehensively attempt a documentation of all
genres to the point where many would see us as leading the pack in such
things.  Other, more "serious" subjects are still doing respectably
well, but our greatest success is in what many people see as  trivial.
We still demand NPOV on these articles, but can be more  relaxed about
original research. The good secondary material is just not  there, and
you don't maintain a lead by waiting for other sites or books  to put
something decent together.

Absolutely. Some of our video game featured articles are some of the  best
game sources on the internet. They don't go into excess detail, but they  cover
the key aspects of development, story, gameplay, and reception. If one is
patient enough, encyclopedic articles will flourish out of the most crufty main
articles.

| Tyler | Zorin Deckiller |
| Wikipedia Administrator |  Former SWU member |
| _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deckiller_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deckiller)   |
| _http://www.myspace.com/redsectora_ (http://www.myspace.com/redsectora)   |


from_name: mboverload

body:
A limited-access highway is a highway that has its access limited.

TaDa!  I just defined it for you.

On 7/24/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> SPUI wrote:
>
> >Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 16:49:22 -0400, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>So instead you prefer a term which has *no* meaning in *most* places?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>Yes, because its meaning is consistent. [[Category:Elevators]] includes
> >>>lifts.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>[[WP:NBD]].  My kids know what an elevator is, they don't know what a
> >>freeway is.  Given that the words for this type of road in just about
> >>every other language I can think of translate to "motor road" or
> >>"motor way" perhaps that would be the least ambiguous thing.  But
> >>limited-access highway, or restricted access highway, is also
> >>unambiguous without carrying the usual overtones of America = The
> >>World, per the World Series etc.
> >>
> >>
> >I've already explained that limited-access highway is ambiguous.
> >
> I don't see what's ambiguous about the term.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
About perks:  Being an admin makes you a target of death threats, whackjobs
like Daniel Brandt, and continued harassment by people off their rocker
without anything to do.

The only thing perky about being an admin is deleting/protecting stuff.  And
that's only a perk if you enjoy that kind of thing.  Well, that is, as long
as you're not the target of a malicious RfC at the moment.

mboverload


body:
I'm not aware of any spellchecker that actually works on Firefox.

On 7/24/06, maru dubshinki <marudubshinki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/24/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 25/07/06, Mark Ryan <ultrablue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > What language spell checker is it? What's the bet it's just American
> > > English. Hooray.
> >
> > Probably, but this is better than nothing. There must be third-party
> > tools which do this already?
> > --
> > Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
>
> There are plenty of methods, like Aspellfox, but they all have some
> sort of problem (spellbound is hard to set up and fragile, Aspellfox
> doesn't let words be saved, etc. And almost all require some sort of
> manual invocation). With any luck, the configuration willl let you
> specify a dictionary (this is probably more feasible for *nix
> users...); actually, I would be very surprised if the spellchecker
> didn't let one do that.
>
> ~maru
> for the curious, I use View Source With and have it call emacs, which
> itself has a hook to run flyspell/ispell.
> _______________________________________________
> 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: habj

body:
Sorry for crossposting this. It felt wikisource-l was the most appropriate
list, but since the topic has been discussed a lot in wikitech-l it seemed
reasonable to post it there, too.

I agree the poem-tag makes life easier on wikisource, it saves loads of time
when putting poems there. I wonder if it would be a good idea to add another
semantic tag - that for the "intro" text, before the actual poem. Sometimes
there is none but usually there is the name of the poem and/or the name of
the author, and sometimes a little extra info.

Att small wikisources, this little intro - like most texts on the wikis -
are often in plain text. When the poem tag is applied, it does not look so
good. The result is like this
http://sv.wikisource.org/wiki/Till_min_far
With no difference in indentation or font, it is kind of difficult to see
where the intro text ends and the poem starts especially if we imagine a
very short intro. It is not appealing to the eye. One could add extra blank
lines, that would work, but on most wikis that method seems to be frowned
upon. English wikisource has a set of templates for fomatting the "intro"
part - here is an example.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/That_Day
So now, at least at Swedish Wikisource experiments with similar templates
have been started. That is an option, but adding a semantic tag resulting in
the need of templates seems a bit awkward to me.

What is the solution here, for the wikis that do not already have these
elaborate templates? One could do some wiki-specific adaptation to the poem
tag, so that it adds blank spaces above the poem - that is however not so
nifty when there actually is no "intro". Should we ask to get another
semantic tag for the intro? Or is templates, like at English Wikisource, the
major solution?

/habj


subject: [Textbook-l] PediaPress

body:
On 25/07/06, Karl Wick <karlwick at gmail.com> wrote:
> Here is a website where folks can purchase printed books based on Wikipedia
> content:
>
> http://pediapress.com/
>
> Currently featured books include: Quantum
> Mechanics<http://pediapress.com/showbook/dcchcaruqoqeqfro/>,
> Big Science <http://pediapress.com/showbook/pcfyakskyfnqnigc/>, 3D Computer
> Graphics <http://pediapress.com/showbook/uidrpqgpwhpwilvl/>, and
> Econometrics <http://pediapress.com/showbook/irbexhnsmymhjbxw/>.
>
> Note that on the info page they admit that they may not be in full
> compliance with the GNU FDL, and that it seems to be so new that there is no
> Wikipedia article about it.
>
> Comments?

For the record, this has been discussed over at Foundation-l. The
thread starter can be found here:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-July/008330.html

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


body:
On 25/07/06, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter at gmail.com> wrote:
> No management expert will ever tell you that a group of 1000 people
> will ever get anywhere in strategy terms very fast. It is simply too
> large to facilitate effective communication and quick agreement on
> issues. As you say, there is a core community group missing. There is
> the board and related personnel at the top (aka, OFFICE) , followed by
> a small group of judges(aka, bcrats) who dont make policy so much as
> rule on it, and then there are the so called "janitors" (aka, sysops).
>
> Following the highly successful national model with Cabinet, Courts,
> and Parliament, it is the parliament that is missing. Right now, and
> possibly from the wiki culture, the parliament is traditionally the
> whole community with anyone who wants to have a say being able to do
> so. I would contend that the size of such a parliament is limited in
> its ability to make effective decisions.
>
> The current heirarchy does not place any special policy related
> privileges on the sysop layer, and I am not about to say that it
> should, but in ignoring the Parliament layer it is missing an
> essential branch in the proven three prong, "separation of powers"
> model.

Importantly, Wikipedia is not a nation state and can't be compared to
one. Our "judiciary" simply settles a few fights and determines a few
basic punishments: partial exclusion and total exclusion). Since
Wikipedia is a digital project with only hundreds of active editors,
representative democracy is not necessary. Direct democracy has thus
far served our needs well, and will continue to do so for the
foreseeable future.

Just out of interest, who are you suggesting plays the role of
executive/cabinet?
--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


body:
On 25/07/06, Mark Ryan <ultrablue at gmail.com> wrote:
> What language spell checker is it? What's the bet it's just American
> English. Hooray.

Probably, but this is better than nothing. There must be third-party
tools which do this already?
--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Berto

body:
Hi!
>One
> problem is that it would probably take a lot of work.
Yes... a whole load of it, and an endless debug period before shipping into
production environment. Yet, it could be done by at least paying some of the
funcionalities that are needed.

The main problem here is usability. While seasoned editors may only wish to
get better and more powerful tools, what we don't really need is an editing
window that will scare newcomers. A first answer could be an "edit number
sensitive" mechanism, that would propose the wider version only after a
particular user has gone (say) over 500 edits. Newcomers might have a link
suggesting the existence of such an advanced edit tool, and would need to
activate it from their user prefs if they wish to have it immediately.

B?rto


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
On Jul 25, 2006, at 7:10 AM, Stephen Bain wrote:

> On 7/25/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> The points about most edits being simple additions/deletions rather
>> than reshaping articles are well made. It's a very difficult problem
>> to solve.
>>
>
> Indeed, and in a similar vein, there was the cogent observation that
> the first person to an article has the greatest opportunity to shape
> its tone, form and structure.

Yes, once done, often the only alternative is a complete rewrite.

Fred


body:
LOL I can't see any reason why our community shouldn't reflect real life.
And in real life female leaders are less than male leaders in number, yet
usually stronger than we are as per power. So I rate it absolutely normal if
it happens here, too. Another thing is if we want to alter these
proportions, but I wonder how "social engineering" and spontaneity can cope
with each other.

As per reasons leading to such a distribution... I am a radical
contructivist, and I'd rate simply delirious anyone pretending to sit in
someone else's brains to write a "report" from there :) I observe the small
part of reality that I can see with my own eyes, and that's absolutely that
all I can do.

B?rto

----- ???????? ????????? -----
??: "Oldak Quill" <oldakquill at gmail.com>
????: <wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org>
??????????: 25 ???? 2006 ?. 1:45
????: Re: [Wikipedia-l] The New Yorker on Wikipedia

> On 24/07/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> > We have many strong female leaders in various projects.  I leave it to
> > others to speculate why this might be. :)
>
> /me gets out his "Dummies Guide to Freud"
>
> --
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
mboverload wrote:

>A limited-access highway is a highway that has its access limited.
>
>TaDa!  I just defined it for you.
>
That seems straightforward enough.

Ec


body:
Lord Voldemort wrote:

>On 7/25/06, mboverload <mboverload at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>A limited-access highway is a highway that has its access limited.
>>
>>TaDa!  I just defined it for you.
>>
>>
>One better: It's a road. They're all roads. The end.  --LV
>
It's a subset of highways, which is in turn a subset of roads.

Ec


body:
Richard Holton wrote:

>On 7/24/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 19:53:09 -0400, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I've already explained that limited-access highway is ambiguous.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>No, you've named a single place which uses an unusual definition of
>>>limited-access road, which has no obvious parallels outside the US.
>>>Once again, The US <> The World.
>>>
>>>
>>Who is to say which definition is unusual?
>>
>>
>I'd say that definition is unusual, even in the US. In common usage, a
>limited-access highway is a divided highway, with no cross roads--instead
>using on & off ramps.
>
Limited access highway would probably be understood generically in most
of the US, but the term  would not normally be used in the context,
"Take the limited access highway to get there."  Instead people would
say, "Take the freeway (or expressway, or Interstate, or turnpike
according to local custom)."

>The USGS offers this common-sense definition:
>Limited Access Highway: A route that is part of the United States Interstate
>Highway System or other similar expressway.
>(http://www-atlas.usgs.gov/metadata/roadtrl020.faq.html)
>
That definition would be US-centric

>In fact, "expressway" seems like a good synonym (to my very US-centric
>ears).
>
I don't think that its usage is uniform throughout the USA.


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 23:52:21 -0700, ScottL <scott at mu.org> wrote:
>
>
>>However, an article on a fictional work is not a literary critique,
>>it has some of that in it.   However in this case it is an encyclopedia
>>article and depending on the work may include a lot more, some of which
>>are facts that can (only?) be verified from the original work.
>>
>>
>If there are no secondary sources I'd say it was unencyclopaedic
>anyway.  Mind you, for my money we'd have a single one-paragraph
>article on the entire subject of Pok?mon...
>
What makes something encyclopedic is that there are people who want to
read about the subject.

A single sentence in your Pok?mon article could be, "The names of the
Pokemon characters are 'Pikachu, Bulbasaurus, ...'."   :-) In deference
to an other class of luddites I would then omit the accent from "Pok?mon".

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
SonOfYoungwood at aol.com wrote:

>I see no issue in citing scripts for summarizing a series of facts  for a
>plot synopsis in an RPG (such as, "After Galbadia invaded Dollet, the  parliament
>dispatched a request for aid [1]."). Heck, in a situation where  one has to
>show a character changing over time, citing the RPG game script at  multiple
>points may be considered 'common sense synthesis' and not OR. I really  think
>it's a case by case basis, and must ask: how far out of context does  the
>Wikipedia synopsis take the original source? Moreover, I feel that finding a
>reliable summary or two may help round out the sources and give the Wikipedia
>synopsis more "freedom". A synopsis should list the events.
>
The stories of the warfare between Galbadi and Dollet are sometimes
written in a way that challenges the attention span of most games
players.  A certain amount is probably necessary to give context to the
game, and still remain a minor factor in the play of the game.

Reliable summaries must themselves be verifiable in their own way.  The
only way you can verify this stuff is by reference to the game itself.
Who's to say whether in the elsewhere published summary some vandal
hasn't distorted the play through?  You don't want to follow
instructions that say, "Take the mountain path on the left until you
find a trunkfull of treasure." when it really leads to an unbeatable
monster.  Even when we assume good faith we encounter writers who simply
get mixed up between left and right.

Ec


from_name: Adam Lorenz

body:
Hey what's nothing wrong with American English? The differences are very
few. In fact, I write with American English, and there is not one word that
I typed just now that differ between the two dialects.

Adam

On 7/24/06, Mark Ryan <ultrablue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What language spell checker is it? What's the bet it's just American
> English. Hooray.
>
> On 24/07/06, Michael Hopcroft <michael at mphpress.com> wrote:
> > The Firefox 2.0 beta is a superb engine for editing Wikipedia. Among
> > other things, it features something web browsers have traditionally
> > lacked -- an internal spell checker that actually works. the utility fo
> > this for a wikipedia editor should be obvious -- it eliminates the
> > neccesity to go to a second application for spell checking which would,
> > in turn, foul up the wiki formatting.
> >
> > However, this might be why Firefor 2 seems to crash when switching to
> > the edit view on very large articles. Has anyone else had a similar
> > experience when switching to edit view on a very large page?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>

--
Adam J. Lorenz


from_name: Lord Voldemort

body:
On 7/25/06, mboverload <mboverload at gmail.com> wrote:
> A limited-access highway is a highway that has its access limited.
>
> TaDa!  I just defined it for you.

One better: It's a road. They're all roads. The end.  --LV


from_name: ikiroid

subject: [WikiEN-l] POV fork anyone? (coca cola)

body:
On 7/24/06, Philosophus <unknownphysicist at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Steve Bennett <stevagewp at ...> writes:
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >   I'm surprised no one else has noticed this one. We have an
> > archetypical POV fork (see [[Wikipedia:POV fork]]) at [[The Coca-Cola
> > Company]]. I was suspicious that it's so positive ("Corporate
> > citizenship" and all the rest of it). It turns out all the criticism
> > has been moved to [[Criticism of Coca-Cola]]. And to top it off, the
> > criticism article isn't even linked from the main one!
> >
> > Anyone feel like investigating a bit? How did this come to be? I'd
> > love a good conspiracy theory...
> >
> > Steve
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at ...
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
>
>
> I've been trying to fix this particular problem after I noticed this
> email. If
> some of you who are discussing the more general issue here could also help
> with
> the discussion and impending edit war on [[The Coca-Cola Company]], it
> would be
> greatly appreciated. The NPOVing changes are meeting some resistance, and
> some
> editors don't even want to allow {{POV}} tags in the article.
>
> As for the more general issue, perhaps we need a new and more specific
> guideline
> on this, or at least some changes to [[WP:POV fork]] to address the issue
> more
> specifically?
>
> Philosophus
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Well, at the very least all of these "criticism of" pages should be
mentioned in the main article, but they should also present the counter
criticism too. NPOV calls a neutrally worded presentation of various points
of view, so hopefully these criticism articles don't get too wrapped up in
the critical opinions.

And most importantly, they'd better have sources....or else it's just a page
for every person who has a beef with the topic to dump on the subject.


body:
Well, I admit that "there is not one word" is a strange construction. This
is not an Americanism however, it's an Adamism.

Adam

On 7/25/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/25/06, Adam Lorenz <kungfuadam at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hey what's nothing wrong with American English? The differences are very
> > few. In fact, I write with American English, and there is not one word
> that
> > I typed just now that differ between the two dialects.
>
> I would have written the corresponding paragraph:
>
> Hey, [there's] nothing wrong with Australian English. There are very
> few differences. I actually write in Australian English, and none of
> the words in what I just typed are spelt differently between the two.
>
> I don't know if any of those differences are particularly significant,
> or just stylistic. Maybe "there is not one word" is the strangest - I
> certainly recognise this construction, but would never use it. I
> wouldn't say I write "with" a language or spelling system, but "in"
> it.
>
> I'm not sure I would describe AusE vs AmE as "dialects", but they probably
> are.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Adam J. Lorenz


from_name: Mark Ryan

body:
What language spell checker is it? What's the bet it's just American
English. Hooray.

On 24/07/06, Michael Hopcroft <michael at mphpress.com> wrote:
> The Firefox 2.0 beta is a superb engine for editing Wikipedia. Among
> other things, it features something web browsers have traditionally
> lacked -- an internal spell checker that actually works. the utility fo
> this for a wikipedia editor should be obvious -- it eliminates the
> neccesity to go to a second application for spell checking which would,
> in turn, foul up the wiki formatting.
>
> However, this might be why Firefor 2 seems to crash when switching to
> the edit view on very large articles. Has anyone else had a similar
> experience when switching to edit view on a very large page?
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Mark Wagner

body:
On 7/25/06, Adam Lorenz <kungfuadam at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> I don't think that its usage is uniform throughout the USA.
>
>
> In fact, it is a regional usage. In my region they are called highways (or
> interstates, if that is what they are)

In my region, it's called "I-90", because there's only the one.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


body:
>
I don't think that its usage is uniform throughout the USA.

In fact, it is a regional usage. In my region they are called highways (or
interstates, if that is what they are)

Adam


body:
I suppose "limited access" would be the same as motorways. They have on and
off ramps instead of at grade crossings.

Adam

On 7/25/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/25/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > Limited access highway would probably be understood generically in most
> > of the US, but the term  would not normally be used in the context,
>
> For what it's worth (nothing), I (outside the US) have never heard the
> term "limited access" with respect to a road, ever. Or at least I
> intentionally forgot it for the purpose of making this statement.
>
> Actually that's not true - I've seen some country roads marked
> "limited access", meaning that only park rangers are allowed on them.
> And maybe the term is occasionally used in cities to indicate roads
> that large trucks, or unauthorised people aren't allowed to use.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Adam J. Lorenz


body:
We have that same problem in the United States.
There are so many regional names, that it is difficult to know what is the
most commonly used word. The word "freeway" is not used in South Carolina,
but is in many other parts of the country, especially California.
The word "carriageway" is non-existent in American English.

So? What do you call them? We can all agree that they are roads.

On 7/25/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/25/06, Adam Lorenz <kungfuadam at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I suppose "limited access" would be the same as motorways. They have on
> and
> > off ramps instead of at grade crossings.
>
> In Australia, that's a freeway (or a tollway!). And highways have a
> bit of both. Don't think we use the term "motorway" much, but we do
> use "motorist". I'm also not sure which of "dual carriageway" and
> "divided highway" we use more. See the confusion of Australia? We
> recognise nearly all the terms, and have trouble arbitrarily deciding
> which one to use.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Adam J. Lorenz


from_name: Robert Scott Horning

subject: [Textbook-l] PediaPress

body:
Karl Wick wrote:

>Here is a website where folks can purchase printed books based on Wikipedia
>content:
>
>http://pediapress.com/
>
>Note that on the info page they admit that they may not be in full
>compliance with the GNU FDL, and that it seems to be so new that there is no
>Wikipedia article about it.
>
>Comments?
>
>Karl
>
>
 From what I can tell, they are barely in compliance with the GFDL, as
they do state that "The articles are free to use within the conditions
of the GNU Free Documentation Licence".  They do need to come up with a
better algorithm for determing authorship, but that has been discussed
on the Foundation-l thread.

One of the major complaints that I have about this site is that they are
doing an completely automated HTML to printed matter conversion, and
that is spotty at best.  It might just barely work for encyclopedia
articles, but if they tried this approach with Wikibooks it would be
simply ugly and not be worth getting.  I prefer a more human hands-on
approach where the printed form has a little more artistic flair that
copies the content but is definitely a different medium and should
reflect that medium.  The Wikijunior Big Cats book that Munchkinguy put
together certainly fits in as an example of what Wikibooks could look
like when made into a printed version.

I have long stated (at least for much more than a year now) that we as
Wikimedia users and in particular Wikibooks users, need to get together
and do our own publication of content so at least we have control over
what is happening with it.  As we are getting more polished content,
Wikibooks is moving into a new phase of development where the fruits of
our labors are finally going to be noticed and available to a large
number of people.

The question is, how should we proceed with printed physcial
publications of Wikibooks?  If we wait, more and more people are going
to be doing stuff like this "Pedia Press" group, especially if we have
very inviting plums to copy like the PDF versions of Wikibooks on the
front page.

The other aspect to keep in mind is that money is going to be changing
hands with stuff like this.  That means that money is involved in these
decisions, and people are going to get bent out of shape if they don't
think the money is being handled properly, or that somebody is making
money off of their labor that they thought was donated to a worthy cause.

There is also legitimate needs to spend this money that is directly
related to the publication of this content.  This includes formal
copyright registration (I think it would be a good thing for stuff that
gets to this point), buying and maintaining ISBNs and ISSNs (if
Wikijunior becomes a serial publication for example), and perhaps even a
"legal insurance" policy to help protect us against potential liability
issues that keep being brought up.  Of course, it would be nice to have
this as a fundraiser for the WMF, but that should be assumed.

The question then comes up, should this be something done through the
WMF, or should we as independent but like-minded individuals set up
another organization enitrely that would take on the issues of
publication of content?  There are a number of reasons why I think this
should be a seperate entity, mainly for liability and tax reasons, but
there are other advantages of being independent of the WMF.  The
important aspect, however, is that I want the content providers (aka
Wikibooks contributors) also being involved with the physcial
publication as well, and if money is to be made that the people writing
the content will also get "something back" for their efforts.

Due to places like Lulu Press, the startup costs don't have to be all
that high, but it will be taking some money to get things going.  And
some policies do need to be made on Wikibooks regarding links to printed
versions of Wikibooks that are both fair and reasonable to any
independent efforts.

I'm serious about trying to get a "Wikibooks Press" going (I'm not
planning on using the Wikimedia trademark name for the group), and if
anybody is seriously interested in getting something like this going,
please either respond here or e-mail me directly.  There are a few
individuals I've already floated this idea to in the past, but I think
we now have content available to pull this off and get it going.

--
Robert Scott Horning


from_name: Jeff V. Merkey

subject: [Foundation-l] Latest board resolutions

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>On 7/25/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 7/26/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Good luck with the raising of the $60,000!
>>>
>>>Will WiktionaryZ eventually replace the current Wiktionary?
>>>
>>>
>>It's too soon to answer that since the new software is very much still
>>in the beta phase. What I'm hoping is that the current Wiktionary
>>communities will try it out and get involved in making that decision.
>>
>>
>
>Pre-alpha is more like it. ;-) We're not nearly feature-complete (only
>terminological functionality for now), we haven't done a systematic
>security and quality review of the code yet, and we're not up to date
>with the latest MediaWiki. Still, things have been progressing nicely:
>We now have a fairly flexible data and user interface model, are
>working on a generic versioning layer, and have some interesting top
>secret projects as well ;-). Most importantly, people have recently
>been given the ability to add new expressions/meanings, and started to
>systematically do so for a list of 1000 English words:
>
>http://wiktionaryz.org/Portal:eng/List_of_1000_basic_English_words
>
>I'm very happy that Wikimedia is willing to host the project. Let's
>discuss the exact operational parameters at Wikimania.
>
>Erik
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
Erik,

Is there somewhere the wiktionary language/messages files are available
so I can translate them into
Cherokee and Uto-Aztecan for the Wiktionary and Wikibooks esspecially. I
can hand hack them to
map to the pages, but I noticed the Wikiversity stuff has a lot of
additions.

Thanks,

Jeff


subject: [Foundation-l] Latest board resolutions


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Uto-Aztecan Project Status

body:
I met with the tribal council of the Ute Nation last Tuesday and they
have agreed to provide the materials to move the project forward
with machine translations into Uto-Aztecan.  They have requested that
the translated materials remain confidential and accessible only
to the Ute Tribe for now.  I am drafting an agreement relative to the
project to address their concerns.  I am requiring that they honor
the GFDL terms and any other copyright requirements subject to materials
which are translated.  Any other comments would be appreciated
form the community for inclusion in the final agreements before I
forward them for signature.

Jeff


from_name: James Hare

subject: [Foundation-l] Latest board resolutions

body:
Good luck with the raising of the $60,000!

Will WiktionaryZ eventually replace the current Wiktionary?

On 7/25/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> ... have been posted here :
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions#July_2006
>
>
>
> Resolution:election officials passed 20 July 2006
> :drafted by the communication committee. Appointement of the election
> committee for september elections.
>
>
> Resolution ombudsperson checkuser passed 23 July 2006
> :creation of the committee in charge of investigating privacy policy
> abuse reports. Appointment of the original members.
> The committee is free to organise its own rules and in particular to
> define the tools it needs (such as checkuser status on meta to have
> access to checkuser logs. Registration to checkuser list. Creation of
> OTRS specific queue where such requests may be redirected etc...) Wegge,
> please, can you contact the two other members and see what needs to be
> done ?
>
>
> Resolution:WiktionaryZ passed 23 July 2006
> :from the special project committee. Agree to host the WiktionaryZ
> project. Brion will see to this *after* Wikimania
>
>
> Resolution:Hardware_Purchase_Jul-06 passed 24 July 2006
> :upon proposition from the technical committee. Approximately $61,440
> worth of hardware
>
>
> ant
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Latest board resolutions


subject: [Textbook-l] Wikibooks in the press

body:
Piotr \"Derbeth\" Kubowicz wrote:

>There's an article about Wikipedia on the New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact
>
>Please note one thing: three other Wikimedia projects are mentioned: Wikisource, Wikinews and Wikiquote - Wikibooks is not. It should be an
>alert for us: media don't see us and don't write about us.
>
>I am very disappointed that there were no articles about our third anniversary, an important event for our project. We missed a big chance
>to get more attention. Perhaps we should think about what have we done wrong?
>
>
>
I don't think we are doing anything wrong, as there has been quite a bit
of press about Wikibooks within this past year, including articles
specific about Wikibooks.  I will agree that we missed an opportunity to
really do a big P.R. splash, but there are a few things that need to be
fixed first before we are really "ready for primetime".  Mainly it is
spit and polish on the both the content as well as some of the "gateway"
pages on Wikibooks to really show off the content that is of high quality.

I will admit that some huge improvements on the "Main Page" have occured
in this past year, and it is now possible to start out on
http://en.wikibook.org/ and find some worthwhile content that would be
worth reproducing.  Please note this website:

http://libertytextbooks.org/

and in particular note the Ada Programming Wikibook that is slated for
inclusion into a list of the best e-books on the internet.  Certainly
Wikibooks participants need to be involved with efforts like this more,
and work to make more Wikibooks content up to a professional level that
would be included with similar e-book content.

It is also important to note that according to Alexa, that Wikibooks is
the #1 most visited e-book website on the internet, at least for
independent statistics.  I don't know if this says something about
e-books in general as a dismal failure for traditional publishers or if
there is something more to e-books that could be said and should be done
through Wikibooks.  The Alexa ranking of Wikibooks vs. The Gutenberg
Project can be found here:

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?compare_sites=gutenberg.org&range=6m&size=medium&y=r&url=wikibooks.org

One other thing is that the political uphevals on Wikibooks need to end
now.  [[User:Jguk]] has suggested that all of the content removal and
changes on Wikibooks havn't made that big of an impact on actual content
development.  If you look carefully at the usage graph, there has
actually been a plateu or even a slight drop in Wikibooks usage over the
past six months, and I do think that has a direct correlation to the
political turmoil that occured within the Wikibooks community.  Of
course other plateus can be seen in the usage statistics, but it is
something to think about.  I do think the large-scale content removal is
now a thing of the past as many of the buried issues have now been
brought forward and largely dealt with.

About the only remaining "issue" left is to see what is going to happen
with Wikiversity and if Wikiversity content is removed from Wikibooks,
what kind of an impact that will have on remaining content on Wikibooks.
 Deciding what content is going to remain on Wikibooks is going to be a
fun task to deal with.

--
Robert Scott Horning


from_name: Peter Ansell

body:
On 23/07/06, stevertigo <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Peter Ansell <ansell.peter at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why don't more people focus on the core policies like verfiability
> > more when they attempt to address so called "notability" issues? :)
>
> Because Wikipedia has no leadership. It has 1000 sysops who are just "janitors"
> according to the dominant view, no editorial core, and a founder who has had
> argued enough with trolls and has gone wandering off into the land of politics.
>
> SV
>

No management expert will ever tell you that a group of 1000 people
will ever get anywhere in strategy terms very fast. It is simply too
large to facilitate effective communication and quick agreement on
issues. As you say, there is a core community group missing. There is
the board and related personnel at the top (aka, OFFICE) , followed by
a small group of judges(aka, bcrats) who dont make policy so much as
rule on it, and then there are the so called "janitors" (aka, sysops).

Following the highly successful national model with Cabinet, Courts,
and Parliament, it is the parliament that is missing. Right now, and
possibly from the wiki culture, the parliament is traditionally the
whole community with anyone who wants to have a say being able to do
so. I would contend that the size of such a parliament is limited in
its ability to make effective decisions.

The current heirarchy does not place any special policy related
privileges on the sysop layer, and I am not about to say that it
should, but in ignoring the Parliament layer it is missing an
essential branch in the proven three prong, "separation of powers"
model.

Peter Ansell


from_name: Pat Felsted

subject: [Wikitech-l] OpenID extension for MediaWiki

body:
Bah you beat me to it.  I was just debugging an openid extension I wrote
based on the openid patch.  Hehe.  I will check it out and let you know
how it goes.

Pat

>>> Evan Prodromou <evan at prodromou.name> 7/25/2006 12:03 PM >>>
Hi, all. I wanted to let everyone know that I've checked in an OpenID
extension into MediaWiki Subversion (in extensions/OpenID).

The extension lets users log in with an OpenID
(http://www.openid.net/)
instead of a username and password. An OpenID is a special URL that
people can use to log in to a Web site. The extension also lets users
who have an account on the wiki log in to other OpenID-aware Web sites
with their wiki user page as their OpenID.

Typical uses:

      * Single-signon between multiple affiliated wikis and other
sites.
        We have 12 wikis that work together for Wikitravel, and users
        can login to different Wikitravel wikis with their home wiki
        account.
      * Single-signon across the Internet. OpenID isn't that well
known
        ''yet'', but theoretically someone could login to their OpenID
        identity server in the morning and not have to login to
another
        site for the rest of the day.

I know that Wikimedia developers have some plans for single-signon
between WM sites; this extension would allow single-signon for
contributors to log into external sites like Wikia, WikiHow,
Wikitravel,
and other MediaWiki installations, as well as OpenID-aware services
like
LiveJournal and Moveable Type. And, of course, vice versa.

Please let me know if you a) install this software and b) get any
problems. I'd especially appreciate work on the UI layout, which is a
little klunky. I'd also love to get some acceptance criteria for
installation on Wikimedia sites. I plan on hacking on this quite a bit
between now and Hacking Days at Wikimania.

~Evan

________________________________________________________________________
Evan Prodromou <evan at prodromou.name>
http://evan.prodromou.name/
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] POV fork anyone? (coca cola)

body:
"Perception" sounds more multidimensional than "Criticism".....but the
perception better be pretty damn important to have its own article. You
can't have that sort of thing for every subject......only ones whose
perception is notable.


body:
It's like Star Trek. And he's actually getting along with Utes, not
easy.

Fred

On Jul 25, 2006, at 11:55 AM, James Hare wrote:

> It's wonderful that you're working very hard to ensure that
> Wikipedia can be
> presented in every single language known to man... we're getting
> one step
> closer to building the Universal Translator.
>
> On 7/25/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> I met with the tribal council of the Ute Nation last Tuesday and they
>> have agreed to provide the materials to move the project forward
>> with machine translations into Uto-Aztecan.  They have requested that
>> the translated materials remain confidential and accessible only
>> to the Ute Tribe for now.  I am drafting an agreement relative to the
>> project to address their concerns.  I am requiring that they honor
>> the GFDL terms and any other copyright requirements subject to
>> materials
>> which are translated.  Any other comments would be appreciated
>> form the community for inclusion in the final agreements before I
>> forward them for signature.
>>
>> Jeff