from_name: steven l. rubenstein

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote,
>As far as I'm aware, there are no useless or unacceptable
>sources (even /dev/random has a value in the right context), only useless
>and unacceptable citations.

You are not being clear, but I think you are saying that all sources are
valid, but they can be used properly or improperly (for example, Nazi
propaganda about Jews tells you very little about Jews, but tells you a lot
about Nazis).  I agree.  When I said that some sources are unacceptable, I
thought it was understood that I meant in relation to a particular point
concerning a particular item in a given article (this is I think how the
policies are written so I thought that would be obvious; maybe the policies
could be clearer although I really thought it was obvious).

In any event, conflicts over how to use sources is at the heart of many
content-centered problems at Wikipedia, and arguments over the relevance
and proper use of sources is at the heart of many edit and revert wars that
go on for months and months.  This is the problem, and we do need to
address it.

I have stated my views: first, this sort of problem often does not involve
the violation of behavioral guidelines, so the mediation and arbitrations
committees will not address them; second, on many topics there relatively
few of the editors active at Wikipedia have enough substantive knowledge to
evaluate such conflicts over content (they can of course help in editing
the language to make it clearer -- but clear expression is different from
the validity and value of what is being expressed), so the ordinary
mechanism of free content/anyone can edit often does not work.  For these
two reasons, I think we need to figure out some other mechanism.

I know many people reasonably disagree with me over the solution.  But the
problem itself is real.

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject: [WikiEN-l] reply to Tony Sidaway

body:
>steven l. rubenstein said:
> >
> >>"Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport at bluebottle.com>
> >>
> >>Quality of source is usually (but not always) POV. We're supposed to be
> >>writing NPOV articles.
> >>A caveat such as "warning: the article relies on population projections
> >>that were proven by events to be grossly in error" is fine and NPOV. A
> >>caveat such as "the claims at this site are patently incorrect" is POV
> >>and superfluous. Otherwise rely on the general site content disclaimer
> >>and the reader's commonsense.
> >
> > I believe this misrepresents our policy.
>Could you be more specific?

I'm afraid you will have to read my entire e-mail, and not just the first
sentence.  I do not see how I could possibly be more specific than I am in
the three paragraphs that you didn't seem to read.  If you read them and
don't think I am being specific, I am sorry but I cannot help you.  It's as
specific as one can get.

But my advice to you is to read over the other policies that I mention
carefully, and perhaps read through the entire histories of the various
cases that others have mentioned as examples of prolonged conflict over
content.  I think if you know more about Wikipedia policies and practices,
you will find it easier to follow this discussion.

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701


list: commons-l

from_name: David Gerard

subject: [Commons-l] SVG upload?

body:
I just uploaded [[Image:X client server example.png]]. That's a little
network diagram done in Inkscape. So the native form is SVG, which is
highly editable and thus makes some sense as a work to distribute under the
GFDL - the SVG is the source code, the PNG is just a rendering.

But I can't upload SVG. Is there a good reason for this, or is it just that
no-one thought of it?

(SVG is just XML text - I don't know of a way to include malware.)

This goes for other image formats - GIMP, Illustrator, etc. For resources
under a license that allows editing, it would make sense to allow upload of
the source version.

- d.


from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: The Mediation Committee

body:
I boldly added two of the most supported ones.
It is not so obvious to me whether the other candidates should be added
or not added.

Quizz : who are the two last approved mediators  ?

:-)

Anthere

Rebecca a ?crit:
> I've been concerned about this myself, and I'd have gone ahead and
> added most of the new applicants to the list (as I suggested we do
> about a month ago), but as I'm no longer a mediator, I can't. We
> *really* need to get these applicants in, and appoint a new chair
> (considering that sannse was effectively filling in in Bcorr's
> absence, and sannse has now left for the AC). This has been made all
> the more urgent since the departure of Ed Poor, who, to my knowledge,
> had been handling a significant percentage of incoming mediation
> cases. I know I mentioned something along these lines when he applied
> for the committee, but once someone gets around to clearing up these
> requests, I think Jwrozenzweig would be an ideal chair.
>
> -- ambi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: The Mediation Committee

body:
I like this boldness :-)

Anyway, I started a small paragraph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AMediation_Committee#Candidate_for_being_chair
We currently have one candidate
and three supports, no opposition.

Give it a few days and just let Jwrosenzweig be the chair if there is no
opposition.

Anthere

Pete/Pcb21 a ?crit:
>
>  > Jwrosenzweig is the best possible person I can think of for
>
>> the job, whether it's as a new permanent chair or an interim one.
>>
>> ~blankfaze
>
>
> Strong support from me too.
> In this situation there is likely to be little opposition to promoting
> the currently well-supported candidates. We should do that this weekend,
> and deal with any issues that arise afterwards (if any).
>
> Pete


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] culture - recipes and other stuff

body:
Perhaps. I haven't entirely made up my mind on that.

But I do definitely think that we should have no articles consisting
solely of a recipe.

Mark

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 11:46:20 -0800, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:40:51 -0700, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > But the thing with a recipie is that there are infinite possibilities,
> > and different people make it different ways. As I said before, we
> > should describe what makes it what it is and how it is made, but be
> > vague enough that we include every possibility for that food. This
> > isn't a recipie.
>
> On the other hand, we can ILLUSTRATE with sample recipes, just as we
> can illustrate with sample photographs.  Sometimes vagueness is too
> vague; sometimes what is needed is a specific as an example.  So long
> as we note that variations do exist and this is just an example, we're
> fine.  Just as we illustrate, say, an article on Persian cats with a
> picture of a specific cat; we do have to point out the possible
> variations and that this is just an example, not the definition.
>
> -Matt (User:Morven)
>


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Axel

subject: [Wikitech-l] [ANN] Eclipse Wikipedia Editor 1.1.2c

body:
Hi

I made a new internal version of the plugin:
   http://plog4u.org/download/net.sourceforge.phpeclipse.core_1.1.2c.zip

If you would like to install it, be sure to restart eclipse once with
the -clean option to clear the old plugin.xml cache.

New features:
- you can now create a Wikipedia project directly through the menu
File->New->Project.
- with a right mouse click on a file or folder in the Navigator view you
can open "Wikipedia Upload" and "Wikipedia Download" menu and
upload/download multiple files in one step.
(the upload requires a user and password)
- you can configure your user and password for the upload in the menu:
Window->Preferences
and there in the node: Wikipedia Editor Configurations
- upload and download are writing problems into the console view

***Note*** I only tested the plugin with utf-8 encoded Wikipedia
installations.
iso-8859-1 sites will possibly make problems.

I moved the description to this new URL:
(it's a dead-end page at the moment)
http://www.plog4u.org/index.php/Using_Eclipse_Wikipedia_Editor

It would be nice, if someone could help me polish up the bad english in
my description and help in iron out the bugs to make the plugin more
reliable.

Axel Kramer


body:
Sorry, I used the wrong url:
http://www.plog4u.org/download/phpeclipse.community_tools_1.1.2c.bin.zip

Axel schrieb:

> Hi
>
> I made a new internal version of the plugin:
>   http://plog4u.org/download/net.sourceforge.phpeclipse.core_1.1.2c.zip
>
> If you would like to install it, be sure to restart eclipse once with
> the -clean option to clear the old plugin.xml cache.
>
> New features:
> - you can now create a Wikipedia project directly through the menu
> File->New->Project.
> - with a right mouse click on a file or folder in the Navigator view you
> can open "Wikipedia Upload" and "Wikipedia Download" menu and
> upload/download multiple files in one step.
> (the upload requires a user and password)
> - you can configure your user and password for the upload in the menu:
> Window->Preferences
> and there in the node: Wikipedia Editor Configurations
> - upload and download are writing problems into the console view
>
> ***Note*** I only tested the plugin with utf-8 encoded Wikipedia
> installations.
> iso-8859-1 sites will possibly make problems.
>
> I moved the description to this new URL:
> (it's a dead-end page at the moment)
> http://www.plog4u.org/index.php/Using_Eclipse_Wikipedia_Editor
>
> It would be nice, if someone could help me polish up the bad english in
> my description and help in iron out the bugs to make the plugin more
> reliable.
>
> Axel Kramer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: The Mediation Committee

body:
I am glad there is a candidate to follow-up.

Since there was no opposition to you as a candidate, I added you to the
mediator list.

I opened a paragraph for the chair election and listed you as a candidate.

I advertised this on the pump, and you advertised yourself here, so I
guess it is enough.

If there is no serious opposition or serious other candidates, just
consider yourself the chair of the MC and let's move ahead :-)

-------

As for your question : is there another place to discuss all this ?
The answer is no.

After the creation of the MC last year, most of the discussion was done
by email between members. A lot was said, but since it was private,
there is no way for you to find it back. Well, as far as I remember, I
wrote a lot on the topic during two months, and in front of the lack of
responses from about half of the members, I just basically gave up.

Later, a board website was set. I copied there a lot of the discussions
we hold privately or I tried to summarize. It took me a lot of time as
well to do this. Later the board was closed and all discussions were
thus lost.

If you ask me my opinion on this, several months later, I still have not
digested this at all. I think the mediation committee was about half of
my daily activity on Wikipedia for about a full trimester. Most was
private since mediation is a private activity. The part public has been
deleted. The results of mediation done through the mediation committee
were frankly limited. (however, this does not diminish the satisfaction
of solving daily crisis when made aware of).
All this is still a bit in my throat and my activity as a part of the
mediation committee is the role which left me sour taste in my mouth for
  several other reasons that the ones mentionned above as well.

Why do I say this ?

Well, just for you to be aware that mediator is a tough activity.
Essentially unrecognised one. Lonely. If there is any sign to support
what I say, it is enough to see the level of implication of each
mediator, as well as resignations, and very likely the number of
mediators who left for the AC.

I do not say it is hopeless, far from it, because I *highly believe* in
mediation, much more than strict arbitration, and I really hope you help
it. I only wish that as a chair, you also help building up a team.

Note that my own experience is not a criticism of previous chairs, as I
was mostly active before we had any chair at all.

------

Note that private mails are still sent now and then. And the big mess is
that we have to put people names in the cc, and likely forget names or
add names that should not be there. I *highly* suggest you create a
mediation-l at wikimedia.org (or similar) either public list, or just a
list of members (redirect to their address), so that one writes to the
right people. If you do so, just tell the developer you ask the mail
address that it is okay with me to create such a thing :-) (in case they
ask)

You have my full support in any cases

Anthere

-------

James Rosenzweig a ?crit:
> I am writing this here because I don't know where else
> to write it -- perhaps [[Wikipedia talk:Mediation
> Committee]] would be preferable, but judging from the
> situation I am about to describe, the page doesn't
> seem to be particularly closely watched at present.
>
> The MC is currently in an apparent standstill: there
> are several requests for mediation that have evidently
> gone without response from a mediator for weeks, half
> the committee has left for the AC, and the committee's
> chair (Bcorr, a fine contributor and mediator) is
> seemingly on indefinite leave (certainly he's been
> away from mediation for a number of weeks, and I
> haven't seen an anticipated return date).  To remedy
> this situation, which was obviously critical as long
> as a month ago, several users (myself included)
> presented ourselves as candidates in mid- to late
> December.  Several of us have, as yet, received
> nothing but support votes from the MC and outside
> voters.  No action, however, has been taken to promote
> us....I suspect it is because there is no Chair active
> to declare decisions final.
>
> I am, of course, very hesitant to say anything about
> this for fear of sounding as though I am grasping for
> a role on the MC -- I don't want anyone to have the
> impression I'm desperate for power (frankly, the break
> following the AC elections has been wonderful).  But
> mediation needs to be fixed and soon, especially
> because AC cases have been refused for not following
> dispute resolution steps -- not having an active MC
> makes dispute resolution extremely difficult.
>
> I am hoping this note sparks someone's attention to
> get the ball rolling.  Obviously, as a candidate, I
> can't really "be bold" and promote a bunch of us, and
> if mediation is alive and well (presumably on a page
> other than Wikipedia:Requests for mediation), I hope
> someone will tell me.  But something needs to be done
> before we have too many users (who are apparently open
> to mediation) who get entrenched in opposition to each
> other because a window of opportunity is lost.  Sorry
> to be alarmist.  Best wishes to all,
>
> James R.
> en:User:Jwrosenzweig
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
> http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250


from_name: Rebecca

subject: [WikiEN-l] The Mediation Committee

body:
I've been concerned about this myself, and I'd have gone ahead and
added most of the new applicants to the list (as I suggested we do
about a month ago), but as I'm no longer a mediator, I can't. We
*really* need to get these applicants in, and appoint a new chair
(considering that sannse was effectively filling in in Bcorr's
absence, and sannse has now left for the AC). This has been made all
the more urgent since the departure of Ed Poor, who, to my knowledge,
had been handling a significant percentage of incoming mediation
cases. I know I mentioned something along these lines when he applied
for the committee, but once someone gets around to clearing up these
requests, I think Jwrozenzweig would be an ideal chair.

-- ambi

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:31:42 -0800 (PST), James Rosenzweig
<jwrosenzweig at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am writing this here because I don't know where else
> to write it -- perhaps [[Wikipedia talk:Mediation
> Committee]] would be preferable, but judging from the
> situation I am about to describe, the page doesn't
> seem to be particularly closely watched at present.
>
> The MC is currently in an apparent standstill: there
> are several requests for mediation that have evidently
> gone without response from a mediator for weeks, half
> the committee has left for the AC, and the committee's
> chair (Bcorr, a fine contributor and mediator) is
> seemingly on indefinite leave (certainly he's been
> away from mediation for a number of weeks, and I
> haven't seen an anticipated return date).  To remedy
> this situation, which was obviously critical as long
> as a month ago, several users (myself included)
> presented ourselves as candidates in mid- to late
> December.  Several of us have, as yet, received
> nothing but support votes from the MC and outside
> voters.  No action, however, has been taken to promote
> us....I suspect it is because there is no Chair active
> to declare decisions final.
>
> I am, of course, very hesitant to say anything about
> this for fear of sounding as though I am grasping for
> a role on the MC -- I don't want anyone to have the
> impression I'm desperate for power (frankly, the break
> following the AC elections has been wonderful).  But
> mediation needs to be fixed and soon, especially
> because AC cases have been refused for not following
> dispute resolution steps -- not having an active MC
> makes dispute resolution extremely difficult.
>
> I am hoping this note sparks someone's attention to
> get the ball rolling.  Obviously, as a candidate, I
> can't really "be bold" and promote a bunch of us, and
> if mediation is alive and well (presumably on a page
> other than Wikipedia:Requests for mediation), I hope
> someone will tell me.  But something needs to be done
> before we have too many users (who are apparently open
> to mediation) who get entrenched in opposition to each
> other because a window of opportunity is lost.  Sorry
> to be alarmist.  Best wishes to all,
>
> James R.
> en:User:Jwrosenzweig
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
> http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: foundation-l

from_name: Christiaan Briggs

subject: [Foundation-l] New project proposal - Wikibuilder

body:
Christiaan Briggs wrote:

> That's a good summary of the details Daniel.

Sorry, I should have said SJ.

Christiaan

> Sj wrote:
>
> Why not have a standalone "wikilabs" project....


list: wikimedia-l


body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

> Wikilabs isn't needed at all due to the existence of Wikicities. After
> being hosted at Wikicities for some time we can then see if
> Wikibuilder is 1) a viable idea and 2) if it is something that will
> fit with our mandate.

I don't think this is a correct summary of the situation. If your
statements were true they would beg the question why [[Proposals for
new projects]] and [[New project policy]] exist at all on Wikimedia?

The goal of [[Wikibuilder]] would be to spread and promote knowledge of
the built environment, a very laudable goal in my opinion. This clearly
fits the criteria for proposing a new project under the the umbrella of
the Wikimedia Foundation. And [[Wikilabs]], I'm suggesting, would be
the perfect place for approved project proposals according to [[New
project policy]].

[[Proposals for new projects]] clearly states that "Wikimedia is not a
free hosting company for any kind of wikis. If your project doesn't fit
the ideals of Wikimedia you are probably better off with a wiki hosting
company such a http://wikidev.net or http://www.wikicities.com or
hosting it on your own." Wikibuilder clearly fits the ideals of
Wikimedia.

At the risk of sounding patronising--I really don't intend this to
be--my guess is that you, along with many others involved, have a
natural inclination to reject Wikibuilder as not fitting in because
it's a not a conventional project along the lines of science or media,
hence your comments that Wikicities is the correct venue, in seeming
contradiction to [[Proposals for new projects]].

As I suggested in an earlier email an idea like Wikibuilder would
benefit greatly from being developed by the Wikimedia Foundation. I
doubt a conclusion of viability would ever be reached if Wikibuilder
was started on Wikicities. My guess is such a project would languish
and I, for one, would be very cautious about the amount of time I
dedicated to such an effort (I would sooner see an entirely separate
project set up).

And I certainly don't think Wikibuilder needs to be up and running
_anywhere_ before a decision can be made with regards to Wikimedia's
mandate. A comprehensive proposal is enough to make this decision.

Christiaan


from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
--- Christiaan Briggs <christiaan at last-straw.net> wrote:
> I don't think this is a correct summary of the situation. If your
> statements were true they would beg the question why [[Proposals for
> new projects]] and [[New project policy]] exist at all on Wikimedia?

That is the place to propose new ideas and individual pages linked from that is
the place to develop them, gain input and try to get people interested. It is
also the place to prove that the proposed project is
1) fits within our educational mission
2) is not something that could be done within an existing project.

> [[Proposals for new projects]] clearly states that "Wikimedia is not a
> free hosting company for any kind of wikis. If your project doesn't fit
> the ideals of Wikimedia you are probably better off with a wiki hosting
> company such a http://wikidev.net or http://www.wikicities.com or
> hosting it on your own." Wikibuilder clearly fits the ideals of
> Wikimedia.

How so? The proposal and how it would 'clearly fit' are not at all clear to me.
Nor has the reasoning not to have this be part of an existing project.

> At the risk of sounding patronising--I really don't intend this to
> be--my guess is that you, along with many others involved, have a
> natural inclination to reject Wikibuilder as not fitting in because
> it's a not a conventional project along the lines of science or media,
> hence your comments that Wikicities is the correct venue, in seeming
> contradiction to [[Proposals for new projects]].

As the person leading this idea the onus is on you to convince others that this
is a good idea.

> And I certainly don't think Wikibuilder needs to be up and running
> _anywhere_ before a decision can be made with regards to Wikimedia's
> mandate. A comprehensive proposal is enough to make this decision.

Then get busy writing and winning hearts and minds. :)

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikimedia at SoCal Linux Expo - volunteers needed

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> Matt Brown wrote:
>> I may (have to check my schedule & commitments) be able to help, but
>> do I have to pay the $65 or so for admission in order to do so?  I'm
>> pretty broke-ass this month.
>
> An exhibition-only pass is $10, but lemme check with the coordinators on
> whether that's necessary if you're working with an exhibitor.

I'll have three free passes to hand out to people working the booth. If
we have a couple more, we can probably arrange for them too.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20050122/bba0d0d1/attachment.pgp


from_name: Zoney

subject: [WikiEN-l] Encyclopaedia standards

body:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 09:46:57 -0000, apw at ap-woolrich.co.uk
<apw at ap-woolrich.co.uk> wrote:
> The application of encyclopaedia standards must surely depend on the
> quality and experience of the editors. There does not seem to be a
> clear way of assessing this. I come to Wikipedia by way of writing
> for biographical dictionaries, working for a publisher of academic
> books, as well as researching and writing academic articles and books
> my field of the history of technology. I therefore automatically
> apply those standards to my contributions to Wikipedia. I can also
> apply those standards to pages which might need tweaking. When more
> editors with my kind of background can be persuaded to contribute on
> a regular basis then encyclopaedic standards will spread.
>
> Tony Woolrich
> Canal Side, Huntworth, Bridgwater, Somerset UK
> Phone (44) 01278 663020
> Email apw at ap-woolrich.co.uk
>

A major issue is not to get dishearted by the Wikipedia content that
is genuinely barely coherent English! The majority of Wikipedia
content is certainly at least "average" quality and there are whole
areas that are indeed written to a high encyclopaedic quality. However
- it's not necessarily the case that the major articles are the well
written ones - and one has to accept this also. For example, the
parent article for all of Wikipedia's rail transport topics, [[Rail
transport]] is not well laid out, or a comprehensive neat summary of
the whole area, covering all appropriate sections.

Now the typical Wikipedian reaction is "so fix it", but we are all
volunteers. Particularly hard work will always be in need of attention
- only slowly being attended to. Eventually I hope to tweak the
article in question for instance, but it is a mammoth task. There are
many smaller articles I'd rather work on!

Working on Wikipedia requires some level of immunity to it's darker
sides. For every VfD'ed and speedied article, there are undoubtedly
pieces of pure rubbish that escape deletion for some time. Even worse
are the articles requiring "cleanup" that no-one wants to attend to.

If you get dishearted, go read some of the better articles on topics
you enjoy. (Don't necessarily just browse featured articles, you may
encounter the one "featured article" that shouldn't be). Apart from
anything else, browsing topics you enjoy is a better way of
contributing to Wikipedia. For me, editing Irish-related articles is
always pure bliss - as it is so easy for one in the know to ensure
that they are accurate!

Zoney

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


from_name: Charles Matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Encyclopaedia standards

body:
My assessment is that this (standards) is half the issue - the more
conspicuous half.  How to get adequate articles written in areas where WP
collectively has little expertise is the other major question; this is not
surely just a matter of applying standards, but requires people either to
out on a limb, or gain access to research materials such as an academic
library offers.

Anyway, there are the two limiting shortages: high-quality editors, and
editors in less common areas.

Charles


from_name: John Bradley

subject: [WikiEN-l] Vacuum

body:
User Vacumm has vilated the 3RR, as 3RR is meant to be interpreted
strictly he should now be blocked.		Yours

		John Bradley

Loc: 	15/22 Gambier Terrace, Liverpool, L1 7BL, UK.
Phone:	+44 (0)151 708 7238
Email:  john at ontobus.co.uk
WWW:	www.ontobus.co.uk


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Situation deadlocked, how to solve it?

references:
<BE16531D.AD74%fredbaud@ctelco.net>
	<BAY13-F23FB19CA20CDDE8D3A694FB0820@phx.gbl>
	<740c3aec05012112592f3b178a@mail.gmail.com>

body:
Bjorn, you said you would post your correspondence with Bard Mitchell
once your 24-hour block was up. I'd be grateful if you would do that,
because it speaks to the issue of whether Mitchell should be used as a
source on Wikipedia again. I'd be interested to see, for example,
whether he has simply not responded to your query, or whether he has
actually been evasive.

Many thanks,

Slim

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 21:59:23 +0100, BJ?rn Lindqvist
> But I should have mentioned my e-mail conversation with Bard on the
> talk page. The reason I hesitated to do so, is that I wanted to give
> Bard enough time to answer. I didn't want to embarras myself by first
> saying that Bard is a liar and then have to withdraw that if he shows
> me his sources. After my 24 hour ban is up I will post it. Personally,
> I very strongly doubt that he has ever looked at the documents he
> purports to be citing from.


from_name: BJörn Lindqvist

body:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:06:19 -0800, MPerel <mperel at gmail.com> wrote:
> Bjourne,
> If the number is sourced with all the caveats explained, I don't
> understand the problem including it.

Me neither! That is why I tried to explain all the caveats with a
footnote as I described in my earlier posting to this mailing-list:

1: Mitchell Bard alleges that the UN official record "Progress Report
of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine" estimates that the number
of refugees was 472,000. The progress report was published on
September 16, 1948, ten months before the hostilities and the refugee
flight ended. Large parts of the report is availible here
(http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/ab14d4aafc4e1bb985256204004f55fa?OpenDocument).
It is estaminated that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians left in
the months after September, 1948. The number 472,000 should therefore
not be seen as an estimate of the total number of refugees, rather as
an estimate on how many Palestinian refugees there were in September
1948.

But this footnote which explains all the caveats wasn't acceptable to
Jayjg and Viriditas who reverted it.

> Also, "I wrote him and he didn't
> answer" is not a proof that the citation is false.

He answered, but he did not answer my question. Doesn't that smell fishy? :)

--
mvh Bj?rn


subject:
[Foundation-l] New project proposal - Wikilabs,
	was New project proposal - Wikibuilder

body:
I've proposed Wikilabs on [[New project proposals]].

see: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects#Wikilabs
and: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilabs

SJ, I put you down as a proposer, feel free, of course, to remove your
name or move it to 'People interested in joining.'

Christiaan


from_name: Phil Sandifer

body:
I agree.  However, I think, when faced with an article consisting
solely of a recipe, the answer is not, as it historically has been, to
delete the article or move it to Wikibooks, but rather to write the
rest of the article.

A recipe article is basically a food stub article.

-Snowspinner

On Jan 22, 2005, at 2:45 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:

> Perhaps. I haven't entirely made up my mind on that.
>
> But I do definitely think that we should have no articles consisting
> solely of a recipe.
>
> Mark
>
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 11:46:20 -0800, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:40:51 -0700, Mark Williamson
>> <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> But the thing with a recipie is that there are infinite
>>> possibilities,
>>> and different people make it different ways. As I said before, we
>>> should describe what makes it what it is and how it is made, but be
>>> vague enough that we include every possibility for that food. This
>>> isn't a recipie.
>>
>> On the other hand, we can ILLUSTRATE with sample recipes, just as we
>> can illustrate with sample photographs.  Sometimes vagueness is too
>> vague; sometimes what is needed is a specific as an example.  So long
>> as we note that variations do exist and this is just an example, we're
>> fine.  Just as we illustrate, say, an article on Persian cats with a
>> picture of a specific cat; we do have to point out the possible
>> variations and that this is just an example, not the definition.
>>
>> -Matt (User:Morven)
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
There are a number of libraries around that are depositories of UN
documents, the Denver Public Library for one.  But to get this back on track
as far as it being a mailing list topic. A reference given to support
something in Wikipedia should be to a page in a readily accessable document,
not to something that might be found if one searches an extensive document.

In this case there is a middleman, which one might use if that person gave
an adequate reference. (In his written work, not after calling him up and
asking for one).

Fred

> From: "JAY JG" <jayjg at hotmail.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:25:00 -0500
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Situation deadlocked, how to solve it?
>
>
>> Nevertheless....I offer to consult the original UN
>> documents (if I have them; I think I do) to see if the
>> 472,000 figure appears there and in what context.
>> If the number is not there, I'll refute the claim that
>> it is.  If it is there, I'll quote it in context.
>
> Thanks, Zero.  Your return to these pages would be most welcome, though I
> understand your reasons for leaving.
>
> Jay.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
Yet, some limited minority are definitely more equal than others and we have
been unable to exclude their material or even to keep their views from
dominating articles.

Fred

> From: "JAY JG" <jayjg at hotmail.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:36:01 -0500
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] original research, sources, and verification
>
> No, I'm "mistaking" Wikipedia for an encyclopedia which has policies about
> content.  One of them is the NPOV policy, which states: "If a viewpoint is
> held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong
> in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of
> whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or
> not."
>
> Jay.


references:
<BAY13-F10AAAD382E7BAF9DF67D98B0840@phx.gbl>
	<BE1852DB.AE43%fredbaud@ctelco.net>
	<740c3aec0501221815291b5302@mail.gmail.com>

body:
Bjorn, Jayjg's description is correct here. Your version suggests that
the figure is Mitchell Bard's, but it isn't (he gives his own estimate
elsewhere). The figure is from the UN mediator's progress report,
which Mitchell Bard says he is quoting.

Would you please post your correspondence with him on the Talk page,
as you indicated you would, so that other editors can judge whether he
was evasive in response to your enquiry? Your claims about Mitchell
Bard as a source have implications for a number of Wikipedia articles
in which he is quoted.

Slim

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 03:15:42 +0100, BJ?rn Lindqvist <bjourne at gmail.com> wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Estimates_of_the_Palestinian_Refugee_flight_of_1948&diff=9513886&oldid=9513427
>
> The green in that diff is how I want it presented and the
> yellow is how Jayjg wants it presented.


from_name: JAY JG

body:
>Bjorn writes:
>
>Yes, it may have been a mistake of me not to mention my efforts to
>verify Bard's claim. But I have referred Jayjg to the text of the
>document in question at UNISPAL. Plus, I have also mentioned that that
>document (which Bard gets his 472,000 claim from) states that there
>were "some three hundred thousand Arab refugees."

You haven't seen the document in question, as I've explained many times.
You've seen excerpts from another document, which lists 360,000 refugees
*requiring aid*, and Bard also cites this document and mentions this figure.

>In short, I have
>tried very hard to explain why I think the way Jayjg wants the source
>to be written is bad. I have written all this multiple times at the
>talk page.

And I have tried very hard to explain to you, multiple times on the Talk:
page, why your reasoning is incorrect.

>
>But I should have mentioned my e-mail conversation with Bard on the
>talk page. The reason I hesitated to do so, is that I wanted to give
>Bard enough time to answer. I didn't want to embarras myself by first
>saying that Bard is a liar and then have to withdraw that if he shows
>me his sources. After my 24 hour ban is up I will post it. Personally,
>I very strongly doubt that he has ever looked at the documents he
>purports to be citing from. A common technique when you write
>something that has to fit a particular view is to use second hand
>sources. Search for "472,000" and "UN Mediator" on Google and you will
>see what I mean. Hundreds of articles, forum messages and mailing-list
>postings, all claiming to be citing the UN Mediator. But how many of
>them have taken a look at the original documents?

Well, Bard cites this:

Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine, Submitted to
the Secretary-General for Transmission to the Members of the United Nations,
General Assembly Official Records: Third Session, Supplement No.11 (A\648),
Paris, 1948, p. 47 and Supplement No. 11A (A\689, and A\689\Add.1, p. 5; and
"Conclusions From Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on
Palestine," (September 16, 1948), U.N. doc. A/648 (part one, p. 29; part
two, p. 23 and part three, p. 11), (September 18, 1948).

That's pretty explicit, whereas your "suspicions" are just that, suspicions,
with absolutely no foundation in actual evidence.

>I'm prepared to try mediation as the revert wars are not limited to
>"Estimates of the Palestinain Refugee Fligt of 1948," are present on
>other pages as well that I and Jayjg has edited. Or rather, that I
>have edited and Jayjg reverted.

I welcome mediation, formal or informal, as well.  Whatever it takes to
solve the problem, and especially get the dispute of this mail-list, where
it does not belong.

>I hope this comment about veiled anti-Semitism is not directed against
>me. If it is, it is a very strong and offensive insult. Not to
>mention, entierly baseless.

For what it's worth, I've never seen Bjorn do or say anything anti-Semitic
on Wikipedia, and do not suspect him of anti-Semitism.  I do, however,
consider that his attempts to advocate on behalf of Palestinians, and his
creation of the "Palestine-info" userid to do so, have made him lose sight
of critical Wikipedia policies, the primary one being NPOV.

Jay.


body:
--- Christiaan Briggs <christiaan at last-straw.net> wrote:
> That something _could_ be done somewhere else doesn't mean it _should_.

That something _could_ be done here doesn't mean it _should_.

Works both ways but you still must prove that this will do no harm to existing
projects (that is, not a fork) and that it serves our mission and purpose.

> Wikibuilder's goal is to spread and promote all knowledge of the built
> environment within the terms of the Wikimedia Foundation. It really
> doesn't get any clearer.

Built environment? I still haven't heard a good argument on why that can not be
accomplished within the framework on an existing project. I'm not saying that
such an argument does not exist, just that it has not gained my attention.

> Absolutely, but there's no rush. I'd like to see this proposal develop
> organically with lots of input from others; there're many things to
> consider and technological considerations may well delay any decision.

That much we can agree on. :)

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikitech-l] SVG upload?

body:
I just uploaded [[Image:X client server example.png]]. That's a little
network diagram done in Inkscape. So the native form is SVG, which is
highly editable and thus makes some sense as a work to distribute under the
GFDL - the SVG is the source code, the PNG is just a rendering.

But I can't upload SVG. Is there a good reason for this, or is it just that
no-one thought of it?

(SVG is just XML text - I don't know of a way to include malware.)

This goes for other image formats - GIMP, Illustrator, etc. For resources
under a license that allows editing, it would make sense to allow upload of
the source version.

- d.


from_name: Matt Brown

body:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:45:30 -0700, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps. I haven't entirely made up my mind on that.
>
> But I do definitely think that we should have no articles consisting
> solely of a recipe.

Wholly agreed.  I think there is broad consensus on this, and this is
definitely something we can go forward with.  Just as a picture on its
own is not an article, a recipe on its own is not an article.  Both,
IMO, can illustrate an article, but the article should be the meat, so
to speak.

-Matt (User:Morven)


body:
>Nevertheless....I offer to consult the original UN
>documents (if I have them; I think I do) to see if the
>472,000 figure appears there and in what context.
>If the number is not there, I'll refute the claim that
>it is.  If it is there, I'll quote it in context.

Thanks, Zero.  Your return to these pages would be most welcome, though I
understand your reasons for leaving.

Jay.


subject: [WikiEN-l] original research, sources, and verification

body:
>JAY JG said:
> >>From: "Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport at bluebottle.com>
> >>
> >>That site is clearly not authoritative on the activities of the younger
> >>Bush.  It is, however, authoritative on the expressed opinions of the
> >>anonymous kook who wrote that piece.
> >
> > It's clearly not authoritative on Bush to you and me.  But to the
> > person who  cites this (or similar) articles, it is no doubt quite
> > authoritative on  Bush, and everything else as well.  This problem
> > doesn't go away simply  because you feel comfortable making
> > pronouncements on what a specific  website is authoritative on.
>
>
>I think you're mistaking Wikipedia for a website that has unprecedented
>control over the ability of the reader to make a judgement.

No, I'm "mistaking" Wikipedia for an encyclopedia which has policies about
content.  One of them is the NPOV policy, which states: "If a viewpoint is
held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong
in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of
whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or
not."

Jay.


from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

subject: [Wikitech-l] Configuration of mailman to reject non-members.

body:
I've been trying to configure mailman to reject non-member posts to
wikiis-l, I've succeeded in making it reject any non-member posts and
send the poster a message saying that hir mail has been moderated,
however what I've not been able to configure is the message sent in
this email, currently it is:

"""
You are not allowed to post to this mailing list, and your message has
been automatically rejected.  If you think that your messages are
being rejected in error, contact the mailing list owner at
wikiis-l-owner at wikimedia.org.
"""

I set member_moderation_notice in
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/admin/wikiis-l/privacy/sender  to
something entirely different, without success.


body:
> >Tony Sidaway wrote:
> >
> > I
> > don't see exactly  why Bard (or any other person) would be obligated to
> > respond to every  anonymous individual who e-mailed him on the internet
> > demanding information,  or how his response (or lack thereof) would be
> > relevant to a well-cited  reference.
> >
>Well if as I have done one has gone to the UN report on the UN website
>(which is probably incomplete because its author was assassinated by
>Jewish renegades very shortly after sending part of it)

Um, no, he signed it shorly before being assasinated, but there's no
indication it was "incomplete" as of that date.

>and failed to find
>the full text, and nevertheless found conflicting texts on (for instance)
>Avalon,

Which "conflicting texts" do think you've found?

>it is absolutely imperative that the citation, which is ''de
>facto'' incorrect, either be remedied by the originator or omitted
>entirely.

"De facto incorrect" in what sense?

>Be a good chap, remove your claim or modify it to conform with
>the known facts.

Be a good chap, and bring your claims (along with links, citations, etc.) to
the Talk: page for discussion there.

Jay.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: The Mediation Committee

body:
> > Jwrosenzweig is the best possible person I can think of for
>>the job, whether it's as a new permanent chair or an interim one.
>>
>>~blankfaze
>
>Strong support from me too.
>In this situation there is likely to be little opposition to promoting the
>currently well-supported candidates. We should do that this weekend, and
>deal with any issues that arise afterwards (if any).
>
>Pete

For what it's worth, I support this as well.

Jay.


body:
>From: BJ?rn Lindqvist <bjourne at gmail.com>
> > Also, "I wrote him and he didn't
> > answer" is not a proof that the citation is false.
>
>He answered, but he did not answer my question. Doesn't that smell fishy?
>:)

He directed you to his citation.  You then sent him a number of e-mails
which, in a not so veiled way, called his veracity into question.  It
"smells" to me like he doesn't care what anonymous internet e-mailers (who
effectively call him a liar)  think.

Jay.


body:
>Yet, some limited minority are definitely more equal than others and we
>have
>been unable to exclude their material or even to keep their views from
>dominating articles.
>
>Fred

A fascinating, yet enigmatic, statement.  Care to elaborate Fred?

Jay.


body:
On 23 Jan 2005, at 12:19 am, Daniel Mayer wrote:

> [[Proposals for new projects]] and [[New project policy]] ... is also
> the place to prove that the proposed project is not something that
> could be done within an existing project.

The problem is anything _could_ be done on Wikicities, Wikibooks, or as
a separate project, therefore there's nothing to prove and no project
need ever see the light of day on Wikimedia. This line of thinking just
doesn't correlate with that on [[Proposals for new projects]] and [[New
project policy]], nor with how new projects have so far emerged.

That something _could_ be done somewhere else doesn't mean it _should_.

>> Wikibuilder clearly fits the ideals of Wikimedia.
>
> How so? The proposal and how it would 'clearly fit' are not at all
> clear to me.

Wikibuilder's goal is to spread and promote all knowledge of the built
environment within the terms of the Wikimedia Foundation. It really
doesn't get any clearer.

>> At the risk of sounding patronising--I really don't intend this to
>> be--my guess is that you, along with many others involved, have a
>> natural inclination to reject Wikibuilder as not fitting in because
>> it's a not a conventional project along the lines of science or
>> media, hence your comments that Wikicities is the correct venue, in
>> seeming contradiction to [[Proposals for new projects]].
>
> As the person leading this idea the onus is on you to convince others
> that this is a good idea.

My point was that your argument doesn't seem to correlate with much of
what has already taken place in regard to new projects, and the reason
you're opposed to Wikibuilder being developed under the umbrella of the
Wikimedia Foundation is primarily because it doesn't fit your
preconception of what a Wikimedia project should be, and that the
reasons you've presented are secondary to this. My reason for pointing
this out is to suggest that people need to have an open mind about the
possibilities for Wikimedia and not be so quick to dismiss.

>> And I certainly don't think Wikibuilder needs to be up and running
>> _anywhere_ before a decision can be made with regards to Wikimedia's
>> mandate. A comprehensive proposal is enough to make this decision.
>
> Then get busy writing and winning hearts and minds. :)

Absolutely, but there's no rush. I'd like to see this proposal develop
organically with lots of input from others; there're many things to
consider and technological considerations may well delay any decision.

Christiaan


body:
Again, thank you all for your replies.

> zero 0000:
> Personally I would not mention Bard's claim because he
> obviously doesn't know what he is talking about.  For
> example he claims

You have a point in that, but I must disagree. Because the
only way to avoid this circus repeating itself the next time
someone jayjg-like comes around and inserts the 472,000
claim, is to already have it there explained with the caveats.

> zero 0000:
> Nevertheless....I offer to consult the original UN
> documents (if I have them; I think I do) to see if the
> 472,000 figure appears there and in what context.

Yes, that would be very useful! But even *if* the number is
there, it doesn't change the fact that the report was
written before September 16, 1948. Noone should have to read
"472,000" and "UN Mediator" and falsely believe that that
was an *estimate* for the *total* number of Palestinian
refugees created. I believe someone who doesn't know very
much about the Palestine war will get that impression. That
suspicion I base on this:

"As for the date [September 16, 1948], as I understand it
most Palestinians had left by then."

That is what this issue is really about since both me and
Jayjg has edited from the assumption that Mitchell Bard is
not lying. But how we want to present Bard's number
differ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Estimates_of_the_Palestinian_Refugee_flight_of_1948&diff=9513886&oldid=9513427

The green in that diff is how I want it presented and the
yellow is how Jayjg wants it presented.

--
mvh Bj?rn


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Encyclopaedia standards

body:
Fred Bauder (fredbaud at ctelco.net) [050123 03:15]:

> I think what is needed is some leading by example, which if you do, others,
> who may not share your background, can follow. Much depends, of course, on
> whether you can do that gracefully.

A lot of which involves being a good and effective teacher to those not
inclined to listen, as a volunteer ;-) Expertise is appreciated by most,
but doesn't get one any free kicks at all ...

- d.


from_name: Frank v Waveren

subject: [Wikitech-l] Proxy scanning: a suggestion

body:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 08:42:08AM -0800, Joel Franusic wrote:
> The Tor anonymous network (http://tor.eff.org) keeps a list of known
> "exit nodes":
> http://www.noreply.org/tor-running-routers/
Not all of them will do port 80 though, and not all of them will
connect to wikipedia. I collated a list from the dirservers (which do
list the exit policy) and open-proxy blocked the ones that were able
to edit wikipedia. It's a little soon to say, but I think it has
stopped most of the Tor-vandalism.

--
Frank v Waveren                                      Fingerprint: BDD7 D61E
fvw@[var.cx|stack.nl] ICQ#10074100                      5D39 CF05 4BFC F57A
Public key: hkp://wwwkeys.pgp.net/468D62C8              FA00 7D51 468D 62C8


subject: [Wikitech-l] SVG upload?

body:
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 08:07:25PM +1100, David Gerard wrote:
> But I can't upload SVG. Is there a good reason for this, or is it just that
> no-one thought of it?
The filetypes allowable for uploads were hurriedly limited a while
back because of abuse, I suspect it's just that nobody thought of SVG.

--
Frank v Waveren                                      Fingerprint: BDD7 D61E
fvw@[var.cx|stack.nl] ICQ#10074100                      5D39 CF05 4BFC F57A
Public key: hkp://wwwkeys.pgp.net/468D62C8              FA00 7D51 468D 62C8

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050123/04b51dbd/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Reuven R.

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: foundation-l Digest, Vol 10, Issue 23

body:
heyo! :)

> > a general idea - what if there was a patent-wiki?
> to write down
> > softwere(mostly) patents which u want to keep
> availible to the public
> > - providing proof of their existance before any
> other registration
> > attempt? and serving as a lisintg of availible
> methods and such...
> >
> > this could be an idea for the preservation(or
> something?) wiki which
> > suggested writting down how things work before the
> end of the
> > civilization as we know it.. ;p
>
> I like it. I wouldn't restrict just to software
> though. What sort of
> licence did you have in mind.
I'm afraid I can't really anwser it as I don't have
any legal education, I could explain a general idea
but I'm preety sure it's the one you have in mind ^^*

> > and who'd thought that we'll need
> http://www.petitiononline.com/rjw23/
> > ,eh?
>
> "When performing a search for the word "Jew" on
> google.. the first
> result is a site that has been notorious for being
> anti-semitic.. the
> site is called jewwatch.com"
>
> Have you noticed which site is actually number one
> these days?
>
> Christiaan
Wow I didn't notice it has changed... I'm loving
Wikipedia more by the hour.. ;)

Reuevn R.

=====
http://www.mia.org.il/petition/index1.html
http://hungersite.com

in case, ur wondering, about the first link -
http://www.terror-victims.israel.net/mainh.swf

and who'd thought that we'll need http://www.petitiononline.com/rjw23/ ,eh?

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com


body:
The biggest problem I have had experience with is with Marxist-Leninists,
who while comprising a tiny minority, feel their view is of sufficient
significance that it cannot be seriously contradicted. Generally they have
not been satisfied with inclusion of their viewpoint in articles, but go on
to insist on removal of negative information, often cloaking their rational
in the jargon of political science.

We have generally been successful in dealing with neonazis but have
difficulty handling leftist totalitarianism.

Fred

> From: "JAY JG" <jayjg at hotmail.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:13:52 -0500
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] original research, sources, and verification
>
>> Yet, some limited minoritys are definitely more equal than others and we
>> have
>> been unable to exclude their material or even to keep their views from
>> dominating articles.
>>
>> Fred
>
> A fascinating, yet enigmatic, statement.  Care to elaborate Fred?
>
> Jay.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Robert

subject: [WikiEN-l] Let us not attack sources as unreliable without reason

body:
Slim writes:
> Would you please post your correspondence with him on
> the Talk page, as you indicated you would, so that other
> editors can judge whether he was evasive in response to
> your enquiry? Your claims about Mitchell Bard as a
> source have implications for a number of Wikipedia
> articles in which he is quoted.

This makes no sense.  Are you seriously suggesting that
Wikipedia should consider sources as unreliable if one of
our thousands of anonymous editors doesn't get instant
gratification from a writer and scholar that they have
never met?  There are hundreds of respected researchers out
there who do not waste their time answering e-mails from
the millions of people on the Internet.

Having mommy buy you a computer and pay for your AOL
account does not make you a colleague of any academic or
writer, and does not mean that they have to answer you
correspondance.

Every week on the Phyics and Chemistry Usenet newsgroups we
have people (kooks, really) claim that mainstream chemistry
and physics is wrong. Their proof?  They sent their own
letters, questions and theories to leading scientists, and
the scientists did not respond.

Is this really proof that we shouldn't trust these sources?
 No, it is only proof that writers and researchers don't
answer every demand they get from people with an AOL
account.

Robert (RK)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


body:
A reliable source will include a specific document and a page in that
document. It is true that messing around emailing someone who has cited an
ambiguous reference is generally pointless, in fact, may constitute original
research. In this case we have a secondary source who may or may not have
gotten his information from a reliable resource. It does no harm to contact
him, might even get him involved with Wikipedia, but it would be wrong to
make too much from his replies or lack thereof.

The question comes down much more to folks who made estimates and published
them in some accessible and identifiable format.

Some folks write books that are quite derivative. With respect to Communist
artocities Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote a number of books of this nature. He is
a political scientist, but when he comes up with a number, say for how many
died in the Ukrainian famine, you can be sure he did not independently
calculate the number but is quoting it from some other estimate. This makes
citations to his work, not as good as to references where the nature of the
estimate is more transparent.

Fred

> From: Robert <rkscience100 at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 06:13:02 -0800 (PST)
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Let us not attack sources as unreliable without reason
>
> Slim writes:
>> Would you please post your correspondence with him on
>> the Talk page, as you indicated you would, so that other
>> editors can judge whether he was evasive in response to
>> your enquiry? Your claims about Mitchell Bard as a
>> source have implications for a number of Wikipedia
>> articles in which he is quoted.
>
>
> This makes no sense.  Are you seriously suggesting that
> Wikipedia should consider sources as unreliable if one of
> our thousands of anonymous editors doesn't get instant
> gratification from a writer and scholar that they have
> never met?  There are hundreds of respected researchers out
> there who do not waste their time answering e-mails from
> the millions of people on the Internet.
>
> Having mommy buy you a computer and pay for your AOL
> account does not make you a colleague of any academic or
> writer, and does not mean that they have to answer you
> correspondance.
>
> Every week on the Phyics and Chemistry Usenet newsgroups we
> have people (kooks, really) claim that mainstream chemistry
> and physics is wrong. Their proof?  They sent their own
> letters, questions and theories to leading scientists, and
> the scientists did not respond.
>
> Is this really proof that we shouldn't trust these sources?
> No, it is only proof that writers and researchers don't
> answer every demand they get from people with an AOL
> account.
>
>
> Robert (RK)
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Christiaan Briggs

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>> Wikibuilder's goal is to spread and promote all knowledge of the
>> built environment within the terms of the Wikimedia Foundation. It
>> really doesn't get any clearer.
>
> Built environment? I still haven't heard a good argument on why that
> can not be accomplished within the framework on an existing project.
> I'm not saying that such an argument does not exist, just that it has
> not gained my attention.

Yes but you're conflating two points, which is surprising because in a
previous email you kept them separate. Whether it can be accomplished
elsewhere is one thing, and I've responded to this. Whether it is
compatible with Wikimedia's "ideals", as referred to on [[New project
proposals]], is another.

Wikimedia's goal is the spread and promotion of knowledge.
Wikibuilder's goal is the spread and promotion of knowledge of a large
section of human understanding (relating to our very survival on this
planet). Wikibuilder fits the ideals of Wikimedia, there really is no
denying this.

>> Absolutely, but there's no rush. I'd like to see this proposal
>> develop organically with lots of input from others; there're many
>> things to consider and technological considerations may well delay
>> any decision.
>
> That much we can agree on. :)

Great! :)

Christiaan


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] picture themes

body:
I'm not sure if this is correct, but I believe "wordnet" does
something like taht for English.

Mark

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:38:30 +0100 (CET), Lars Aronsson
<lars at aronsson.se> wrote:
>
> When I'm looking for a translation or explanation of a terms such as
> "Sub-Lieutenant" (a military rank), "jackdaw" (a bird) or "zucchini"
> (a vegetable), it makes a lot of sense to see them in contrast to what
> they are not, for example a list of other military degrees, or a group
> of similar but different birds or vegetables.  But I think Wikipedia
> today is too much focused on describing each item on its own, and not
> enough on connecting or contrasting concepts to each other.
>
> The current (English Wikipedia) article on [[zucchini]], even though
> it has fine pictures, doesn't really help me to tell it apart from a
> cucumber or an eggplant.  The "higher level" article [[vegetable]]
> doesn't group vegetables into those of similar kinds.  There is such a
> grouping in [[list of vegetables]], though, where the group is named
> [[squash (fruit)]].  There is actually a link from [[zucchini]] to
> [[squash (fruit)]], but that link is hidden in the middle of the text
> and doesn't stand out as the next-higher-level concept.  If I didn't
> already know what a zucchini is, I might get quite confused.
>
> This is not a critique of these particular articles or even of the
> English Wikipedia.  The same pattern appears everywhere, more or less.
>
> The article [[jackdaw]] doesn't immediately help me to tell this bird
> apart from other black species of the genus Corvus, such as rooks or
> ravens.  The article [[Crow (animal)]] lists these other species, and
> each of them has descriptions and photos (which is excellent, of
> course), but I don't get the overview picture that most modern printed
> encyclopedias would give me.
>
> Note that the German, Netherlands, and Polish jackdaw articles have
> other photos of the same bird.  This must be one of the most commonly
> seen birds of these countries, and apparently everybody already had a
> picture of them laying around.  All are fine photos, but all are
> pictures of this species alone.  The Japanese picture actually has a
> jackdaw and another bird, the very different looking European magpie
> (of the same family corvidae, but of the genus pica, not corvus). The
> picture doesn't help me tell the jackdaw from other black crows.
>
> [[Sub-Lieutenant]] (the Canadian rank) redirects to the article
> [[Lieutenant]] and [[Sub Lieutenant]] (the British rank) redirects to
> the article [[Lieutenant, junior grade]], which both contain the
> explanation in the text. The fact box at the bottom of these articles
> and the page [[comparative military ranks]] actually provide the
> context that I'm looking for, but they don't describe which extra
> authorities the next higher rank has. How does a Sub-Lieutenant earn
> his promotion and what does that give him or her?  An army corporal is
> not an officer rank, not expected to become promoted, but exactly what
> is expected from a Sub-Lieutenant? What does it mean if a character in
> a novel was "an old Sub-Lieutenant"?  Should the reader expect that he
> would normally have been promoted before the age of 27 and does the
> fact, that he did not, provide a clue about something? Terms such as
> sub-lieutentant should be described in contrast to other ranks, or
> else we will understand very little.
>
> Again, this is not a criticism of these particular articles. I know
> nothing about the navy, and I'm learning tons already.  I know where
> Wikipedia was three years ago, and I'm impressed every day.  But there
> is still more work we can do.  Now to one particular solution.
>
> One idea applied within the "LEXIN" project (dictionaries for
> immigrants) of the immigration authorities of Sweden, Norway, and some
> other small countries is a common set of picture themes to which words
> are connected.  A good online example (in English) is found at
> http://decentius.hit.uib.no/lexin.html?ui-lang=eng&dict=eng
>
> If you look at "5. groceries and purchasing", you will find groups of
> groceries, vegetables being one of them, where a zucchini is painted
> next to an eggplant and a cucumber.  You can click either in the
> picture or in the dictionary to your left (if the Javascript works for
> you).  Theme 26 is birds and the jackdaw is near the center of that
> picture theme.  Then go to Kurdish (kurmanji) and learn that "26.
> birds" is "26. balinde" and jackdaw is "qira zeyt?n?, qira helez?".
> Of course, the purpose here is for Kurdish immigrants to learn
> Norwegian, but you get the idea.  That is why only typical Swedish and
> Norwegian birds are depicted in the first place (there are no balded
> eagles or ostriches around here).
>
> I don't know if or where such picture themes could be a good idea for
> Wikipedia or Wiktionary, but the example is there for anybody to get
> inspiration from.  You don't have to be a painter, of course.  You
> could just take a photo of a zucchini, a cucumber, and an eggplant in
> a way that shows the difference between them.  Perhaps the entire
> vegetable desk of some grocery store?  And once the picture is there
> in Wikimedia Commons, it can be reused for any language, just like the
> LEXIN pictures are.  Has this been tried in any Wikimedia project?
> Should we make a list of which picture themes we need?
>
> At first, it might seem that picture themes would be of little use in
> explaining the concept of sub-lieutenant, except perhaps for the
> insignia.  But imagine a picture of a battle ship having a
> organization chart next to it populated with small figures, showing
> one admiral (?) at the top, and in the 4th row showing twelve
> sub-lieutenants each managing their own division of sailors.  I have
> no idea of the actual numbers, but I think the concept could be a lift
> to Wikipedia.  We'll need a hundred people that can draw really good
> and who are willing to put their artwork under a free license. And if
> they aren't experts on navy ranks themselves, they'll need to be able
> to read instructions for what to draw, or interview experts by chat.
>
> The LEXIN dictionary project is described at
> http://decentius.hit.uib.no/lexin.html?ui-lang=eng
>
> --
>   Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
>   Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


body:
It's a less elegant solution, but I think it'll work nicely as a
stop-gap: I've proposed periodically running a bot that grabs various
open proxy lists and scans and blocks them[1]. Your input is
appreciated.

1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Bots#OpenProxyBlockerBot
--
Frank v Waveren                                      Fingerprint: BDD7 D61E
fvw@[var.cx|stack.nl] ICQ#10074100                      5D39 CF05 4BFC F57A
Public key: hkp://wwwkeys.pgp.net/468D62C8              FA00 7D51 468D 62C8

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050123/a3d361df/attachment.pgp>


body:
Andre Engels wrote:

>> Wikimedia's goal is the spread and promotion of knowledge.
>> Wikibuilder's goal is the spread and promotion of knowledge of a
>> large section of human understanding (relating to our very survival
>> on this planet). Wikibuilder fits the ideals of Wikimedia, there
>> really is no denying this.
>
> There's thousands of 'large sections of human understanding'.

That wasn't actually the operative point. What's makes it compatible
with Wikimedia's ideals is the fact that its goal is the spread and
promotion of knowledge (it just happens to be a very large and
important portion of knowledge). i.e. it fits the criteria for a new
project proposal. Whether people think we should do it is another
question. Conflating these two points isn't useful.

> That's not enough to cut it for me. What is it that makes 'the built
> environment' more suitable to such a treatment? What is it you want to
> do in wikibuilder anyway? The term is rather vague, so I'd like to see
> some more explanation.

Take a look at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikibuilder
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikibuilder

Christiaan


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
> Wikimedia's goal is the spread and promotion of knowledge.
> Wikibuilder's goal is the spread and promotion of knowledge of a large
> section of human understanding (relating to our very survival on this
> planet). Wikibuilder fits the ideals of Wikimedia, there really is no
> denying this.

There's thousands of 'large sections of human understanding'. That's
not enough to cut it for me. What is it that makes 'the built
environment' more suitable to such a treatment? What is it you want to
do in wikibuilder anyway? The term is rather vague, so I'd like to see
some more explanation.

Andre Engels


from_name: Paweł 'Ausir' Dembowski

body:
If it were to be started, I suggest merging it with the WikiTech
proposal.

--
Ausir
Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia
http://pl.wikipedia.org


subject:
[Foundation-l] New project proposal - patent-wiki,
	was: foundation-l Digest, Vol 10, Issue 23

body:
Why don't you add it to [[Proposals for new projects]] so it can be
discussed and developed there:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects

Christiaan

Reuven R. wrote:

> heyo! :)
>
>>> a general idea - what if there was a patent-wiki? to write down
>>> softwere(mostly) patents which u want to keep availible to the
>>> public - providing proof of their existance before any other
>>> registration attempt? and serving as a lisintg of availible methods
>>> and such...
>>>
>>> this could be an idea for the preservation(or something?) wiki which
>>> suggested writting down how things work before the end of the
>>> civilization as we know it.. ;p
>>
>> I like it. I wouldn't restrict just to software though. What sort of
>> licence did you have in mind.
> I'm afraid I can't really anwser it as I don't have any legal
> education, I could explain a general idea but I'm preety sure it's the
> one you have in mind ^^*


body:
Robin Shannon wrote:

> OK, im receptive to the idea (in fact i quite like it), but why is
> information about the built enviroment special? why not a wikimedia
> linux wiki, or potplant wiki, or people who are born on the 12th of
> April wiki?

There's a "Why?" section on [[Wikibuilder]]:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikibuilder#Why.3F
(feel free to elaborate it)

If a potplant wiki is proposed I'll be sure to add my comments to the
discussion page on why I don't think it would be a good use of
Wikimedia resources. ;)

> I guess im getting at a point which we all must ask ourselves. What
> makes us who we are; and what is our mission. I think the stated
> mission of spreading human knowledge, could apply to a whole lot of
> things that would probably be deemed inaproprate....  or would they?

Yes but inappropriate according to which terms. There're basically
three questions regarding appropriateness I think:

Q. Does it meet the criteria for a Wikimedia new project?
A. Yes (and, as you imply, many ideas would)

Q. Is it technically practicable?
A. Yes, with a little work on MediaWiki

Q. Would it be a good use of Wikimedia resources?
A. To be decided (which, as you rightly point out, we all must ask
ourselves)

Christiaan


subject:
[Foundation-l] What constitutes a good use of Wikimedia resources?,
	was New project proposal - Wikibuilder

body:
Further to the question of appropriateness of, say, [[Wikibuilder]], an
answer might be more forthcoming within the realms of a wider question,
such as, if Wikimedia were to eventually cover all human knowledge how
would it best be divided up into main categories (projects)? (And, in
terms of Wikibuilder, would this be one of them?)

It would be interesting to develop a discussion along the lines of this
question. Has it been touched on elsewhere? Where would it be best
discussed on meta?

Christiaan


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] SVG upload?

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

David Gerard wrote:
| Frank v Waveren (fvw.wikipediaml at var.cx) [050123 14:45]:
|>The filetypes allowable for uploads were hurriedly limited a while
|>back because of abuse, I suspect it's just that nobody thought of SVG.
|
| Does it check what the file actually is, or just check the extension?

Take a look at SpecialUpload.php some time. In summary, on upload we:

* Normalize the filename
* Ensure the extension is in a whitelist
* Ensure that no blacklisted extensions are present
* For known image types, use the getimagesize() function to detect the
file type and ensure that there is an identifiable header.
** If no type is detected for a known extension, the file is rejected.
** If the detected type does not match the given extension, the file is
rejected.
* Attempt to replicate Internet Explorer's HTML-detection heuristic to
prevent scripting attacks using HTML+JavaScript embedded into a valid
image file.

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFB9CvHwRnhpk1wk44RAsIcAKCSUqZ9P6rPqvBG8O5wLXiKmos83QCbBlsB
Q6k/mOkiuBr7WRXfhsf1gdw=
=75nP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Guillaume Blanchard

body:
Phil Sandifer wrote:

> I agree.  However, I think, when faced with an article consisting
> solely of a recipe, the answer is not, as it historically has been, to
> delete the article or move it to Wikibooks, but rather to write the
> rest of the article.
>
> A recipe article is basically a food stub article.
>
> -Snowspinner

I fully agree.
Use recipe to illustrate article like we do with pictures and consider
article consisting solely of a recipe as a stub that must be enhance
like all other stubs.

Aoineko


from_name: Pedro Fayolle

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wiki parser in JavaScript

body:
Hi,

I've been coding a wiki parser in JavaScript with the hope it could be
of some use for the project (especially in giving some relief to the
servers).

You can view a demo here: http://gusanos.sourceforge.net/wp/wikitest.htm

So far it supports the following features:

*Headings (all levels)
*Normal paragraphs
*Internal and external links (with hidden namespaces and parentheses even)
*Normal inline formatting (italics and bold)
*Lists and definition lists (can be nested)
*Tables with full nesting (can even nest other tables)
*Horizontal bars

What still needs to be done:

*<nowiki> tags
*Undesired HTML stripping
*Images
*Interproject links
*Interwiki links
*Categories
*Signatures
*TOC
*Hierogliphs
*Templates
*?

I think this could be useful for quick previews, avoiding extra server hits.

Some notes:

I've tested it in the following browsers (all of in which more or less
works): Firefox, Opera 7, Konqueror 3.3, Internet Explorer 6.

IE5 just yields an error and does nothing, but I don't feel like
wasting time making it work in it.

What do you think?

-Pedro Fayolle (aka Pilaf)


from_name: Anthere

subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: What constitutes a good use of Wikimedia
 resources?, was New project proposal - Wikibuilder

body:
I do not think there is a wide discussion anywhere, but little bits here
and there might lead you to a certain type of answer.

There is a tendency I think, to restrict what Wikipedia itself could
welcome, and to move to other places what does not belong to a
restricted definition of what an encyclopedia is.

For those who have a restricted definition of what an encyclopedia is, I
see a tendency to wish either new projects, or to suggest that the new
topic be put in wikibooks. It seems wikibooks is more and more becomming
the place to put all what is a bit embarassing to classify.

I wonder if in the future, what we will see is the multiplication of
specialized projects, OR the multiplication of wikibooks to host a
specialized topic, OR somehow a success in putting the specialized
project within Wikipedia itself.

I think this is a key issue for the future, as we see an increasing
number of specialized proposals (such as the wikibuilder or emergency
medicine proposals), or topics being removing from Wikipedia to be
hosted in a wikibook (such as recipes).

Ant

Christiaan Briggs a ?crit:
> Further to the question of appropriateness of, say, [[Wikibuilder]], an
> answer might be more forthcoming within the realms of a wider question,
> such as, if Wikimedia were to eventually cover all human knowledge how
> would it best be divided up into main categories (projects)? (And, in
> terms of Wikibuilder, would this be one of them?)
>
> It would be interesting to develop a discussion along the lines of this
> question. Has it been touched on elsewhere? Where would it be best
> discussed on meta?
>
> Christiaan


from_name: BJörn Lindqvist

body:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:27:18 -0700, slimvirgin at gmail.com
<slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> Bjorn, Jayjg's description is correct here. Your version suggests that
> the figure is Mitchell Bard's, but it isn't (he gives his own estimate
> elsewhere). The figure is from the UN mediator's progress report,
> which Mitchell Bard says he is quoting.

My version suggests that the only source to the claim that there were
472,000 Palestinian refugees in total created in the Palestine war is
Mitchell Bard. In fact the only source has to be him since Count Folke
Bernadotte cannot by applying pure logic have done such a claim. So,
while the figure 472,000 might very well have appeared in Bernadotte's
report, it *must* have been used in an entierly different context than
in which Bard uses it in. It can *not* be written that Bernadotte
estimated that the total number of refugees was 472,000 because that
is completely false. That is what is done in Jayjg's version.

--
mvh Bj?rn


from_name: Lars Aronsson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] picture themes

body:
When I'm looking for a translation or explanation of a terms such as
"Sub-Lieutenant" (a military rank), "jackdaw" (a bird) or "zucchini"
(a vegetable), it makes a lot of sense to see them in contrast to what
they are not, for example a list of other military degrees, or a group
of similar but different birds or vegetables.  But I think Wikipedia
today is too much focused on describing each item on its own, and not
enough on connecting or contrasting concepts to each other.

The current (English Wikipedia) article on [[zucchini]], even though
it has fine pictures, doesn't really help me to tell it apart from a
cucumber or an eggplant.  The "higher level" article [[vegetable]]
doesn't group vegetables into those of similar kinds.  There is such a
grouping in [[list of vegetables]], though, where the group is named
[[squash (fruit)]].  There is actually a link from [[zucchini]] to
[[squash (fruit)]], but that link is hidden in the middle of the text
and doesn't stand out as the next-higher-level concept.  If I didn't
already know what a zucchini is, I might get quite confused.

This is not a critique of these particular articles or even of the
English Wikipedia.  The same pattern appears everywhere, more or less.

The article [[jackdaw]] doesn't immediately help me to tell this bird
apart from other black species of the genus Corvus, such as rooks or
ravens.  The article [[Crow (animal)]] lists these other species, and
each of them has descriptions and photos (which is excellent, of
course), but I don't get the overview picture that most modern printed
encyclopedias would give me.

Note that the German, Netherlands, and Polish jackdaw articles have
other photos of the same bird.  This must be one of the most commonly
seen birds of these countries, and apparently everybody already had a
picture of them laying around.  All are fine photos, but all are
pictures of this species alone.  The Japanese picture actually has a
jackdaw and another bird, the very different looking European magpie
(of the same family corvidae, but of the genus pica, not corvus). The
picture doesn't help me tell the jackdaw from other black crows.

[[Sub-Lieutenant]] (the Canadian rank) redirects to the article
[[Lieutenant]] and [[Sub Lieutenant]] (the British rank) redirects to
the article [[Lieutenant, junior grade]], which both contain the
explanation in the text. The fact box at the bottom of these articles
and the page [[comparative military ranks]] actually provide the
context that I'm looking for, but they don't describe which extra
authorities the next higher rank has. How does a Sub-Lieutenant earn
his promotion and what does that give him or her?  An army corporal is
not an officer rank, not expected to become promoted, but exactly what
is expected from a Sub-Lieutenant? What does it mean if a character in
a novel was "an old Sub-Lieutenant"?  Should the reader expect that he
would normally have been promoted before the age of 27 and does the
fact, that he did not, provide a clue about something? Terms such as
sub-lieutentant should be described in contrast to other ranks, or
else we will understand very little.

Again, this is not a criticism of these particular articles. I know
nothing about the navy, and I'm learning tons already.  I know where
Wikipedia was three years ago, and I'm impressed every day.  But there
is still more work we can do.  Now to one particular solution.

One idea applied within the "LEXIN" project (dictionaries for
immigrants) of the immigration authorities of Sweden, Norway, and some
other small countries is a common set of picture themes to which words
are connected.  A good online example (in English) is found at
http://decentius.hit.uib.no/lexin.html?ui-lang=eng&dict=eng

If you look at "5. groceries and purchasing", you will find groups of
groceries, vegetables being one of them, where a zucchini is painted
next to an eggplant and a cucumber.  You can click either in the
picture or in the dictionary to your left (if the Javascript works for
you).  Theme 26 is birds and the jackdaw is near the center of that
picture theme.  Then go to Kurdish (kurmanji) and learn that "26.
birds" is "26. balinde" and jackdaw is "qira zeyt?n?, qira helez?".
Of course, the purpose here is for Kurdish immigrants to learn
Norwegian, but you get the idea.  That is why only typical Swedish and
Norwegian birds are depicted in the first place (there are no balded
eagles or ostriches around here).

I don't know if or where such picture themes could be a good idea for
Wikipedia or Wiktionary, but the example is there for anybody to get
inspiration from.  You don't have to be a painter, of course.  You
could just take a photo of a zucchini, a cucumber, and an eggplant in
a way that shows the difference between them.  Perhaps the entire
vegetable desk of some grocery store?  And once the picture is there
in Wikimedia Commons, it can be reused for any language, just like the
LEXIN pictures are.  Has this been tried in any Wikimedia project?
Should we make a list of which picture themes we need?

At first, it might seem that picture themes would be of little use in
explaining the concept of sub-lieutenant, except perhaps for the
insignia.  But imagine a picture of a battle ship having a
organization chart next to it populated with small figures, showing
one admiral (?) at the top, and in the 4th row showing twelve
sub-lieutenants each managing their own division of sailors.  I have
no idea of the actual numbers, but I think the concept could be a lift
to Wikipedia.  We'll need a hundred people that can draw really good
and who are willing to put their artwork under a free license. And if
they aren't experts on navy ranks themselves, they'll need to be able
to read instructions for what to draw, or interview experts by chat.

The LEXIN dictionary project is described at
http://decentius.hit.uib.no/lexin.html?ui-lang=eng

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se


from_name: RedWolf

subject: [Wikitech-l] next database downloads refresh

body:
When will the database downloads be refreshed at download.wikimedia.org?
Currently, the last refresh was 16 days ago (January 7, 2005). The related wiki
page says refreshes will occur approximately twice a week. Has this schedule now
changed?


from_name: zero 0000

body:
So now I have copies of the UN documents listed by
Mitchell Bard.  I'll write a report on the contents in
[[Talk:Estimates of the Palestinian Refugee flight of 1948]]
sometime in the next 6-10 hours.  Suffice it to say that
Bard did not correctly report them, nor did either Jay
or Bj?rn guess what the 472,000 is.

Zero.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com


from_name: BZebra at gmx.net

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Integration of phpBB-header and footer? Did anyone
	manage?

body:
hi,

i'm running a phpbb forum and I would like to integrate the wiki-software
there. however I have some trouble integrating the header and footer of my
phpbb into mediawiki.
so far I tried with putting the entire code of the mediawiki index.php into
an external phpbb-site (with header and footer of my phpbb). it kind of
works ( see here: http://skoliose.net/test-lex/ ) but there is a problem
with the special chars.
depending on the browser, either the spezial-chars of the phpbb-header and
footer don't get shown correctly or the special chars of the wiki-text.
this is the code of the index.php I used
http://skoliose.net/test-lex/index.php.txt

does anybody know how to ! fix that problem or has anybody successfully
integratet an (phpbb-)header oder footer in his wiki? are there any
tutorials which could help me?

thanks,
BZebra

--
GMX im TV ... Die Gedanken sind frei ... Schon gesehen?
Jetzt Spot online ansehen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/tv-spot


from_name: Robert Jones

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wiki parser in JavaScript

body:
This is a great script. These links might be useful to you when making the
script display images as the first folder is the first character of an MD5
hash of the image name, and the sub-folder is the first two characters of
the same hash. E.g. the MD5 of Wiki.jpg is dfc8b3d43bf2b5d7ef76c43459f6b06f
so Wiki.jpg so the location of the image path ends: /d/df/Wiki.jpg

http://pajhome.org.uk/crypt/md5/
http://pajhome.org.uk/crypt/md5/md5src.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikitech-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
> [mailto:wikitech-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pedro Fayolle
> Sent: 23 January 2005 18:48
> To: wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Wikitech-l] Wiki parser in JavaScript
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I've been coding a wiki parser in JavaScript with the hope it could be
> of some use for the project (especially in giving some relief to the
> servers).
>
> You can view a demo here:
> http://gusanos.sourceforge.net/wp/wikitest.htm
>
> So far it supports the following features:
>
> *Headings (all levels)
> *Normal paragraphs
> *Internal and external links (with hidden namespaces and
> parentheses even)
> *Normal inline formatting (italics and bold)
> *Lists and definition lists (can be nested)
> *Tables with full nesting (can even nest other tables)
> *Horizontal bars
>
> What still needs to be done:
>
> *<nowiki> tags
> *Undesired HTML stripping
> *Images
> *Interproject links
> *Interwiki links
> *Categories
> *Signatures
> *TOC
> *Hierogliphs
> *Templates
> *?
>
> I think this could be useful for quick previews, avoiding
> extra server hits.
>
> Some notes:
>
> I've tested it in the following browsers (all of in which more or less
> works): Firefox, Opera 7, Konqueror 3.3, Internet Explorer 6.
>
> IE5 just yields an error and does nothing, but I don't feel like
> wasting time making it work in it.
>
> What do you think?
>
> -Pedro Fayolle (aka Pilaf)
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Wiki parser in JavaScript

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

Pedro Fayolle wrote:
| I've been coding a wiki parser in JavaScript with the hope it could be
| of some use for the project (especially in giving some relief to the
| servers).
[snip]
| I think this could be useful for quick previews, avoiding extra server
hits.

Honestly, I don't think this is a viable path.

Preview is valuable because it produces *exactly* the output that the
wiki does. A JavaScript work-alike parser is unlikely to work exactly
the same even in the best case, and isn't going to provide for
extensions at all without invoking the PHP parser on the server.

Having two parallel parsers is also a bad practice, introducing extra
work in maintaining them both and keeping them in sync. Someday we may
have a real working 'alternate' parser, but if so it's going to have to
prove itself worth the effort of maintaining it; as it is we have enough
trouble with sloppily-written pages not working when copied to another
wiki that's not running with tidy to clean up HTML kinks, and that's
just a post-processing phase rather than the parser itself.

There's some experimental code in 1.5 for fetching previews via an
XmlHTTPRequest, which avoids the skin rendering overhead (and in many
cases should avoid message cache initialization overhead) required for a
full HTML page submission while letting the PHP parser return real
rendering results. Most of the time spent in rendering non-trivial pages
is concentrated in a few hotspots (particularly title normalization,
link checking, and link generation) and IMO optimization effort would be
better spent on these.

This is not to say that a JavaScript wikitext parser is useless; but I
don't think we would be able to use it for things like previews.

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFB9JRcwRnhpk1wk44RApfvAJ9h+DVRGvZt2CoOJmgYAOvUEuEJVACdFtFa
P6UpbmxHcgq2BWo99t7n9c8=
=LnJY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [Wikipedia-l] picture themes

body:
Lars Aronsson wrote:

>When I'm looking for a translation or explanation of a terms such as
>"Sub-Lieutenant" (a military rank), "jackdaw" (a bird) or "zucchini"
>(a vegetable), it makes a lot of sense to see them in contrast to what
>they are not, for example a list of other military degrees, or a group
>of similar but different birds or vegetables.  But I think Wikipedia
>today is too much focused on describing each item on its own, and not
>enough on connecting or contrasting concepts to each other.
>
We do have "how to tell the difference between a bee and a wasp" and
similarly for moths and butterflies. Lots of articles have notes on
how the subject is different from similar subjects, and I'd be
surprised if anyone objected to such additions. If they're scarce
I'd say it's due to lack of energy.

I agree that there is a need for "visual disambiguators". [[Gallery
of mountains]] is an experiment along those lines, and in the
philatelic world the "stamp identifier" is an important reference
work consisting of a collection of pictures of the types of stamps
that don't carry any text - I was going to try making a WP-version
of such a thing eventually, when there are more images.

At this point you should probably try making some experiments.
Leave a note on the talk page about what you're doing (to fend off
the deletionists :-) ), and if experiments seem encouraging, make
a WikiProject and advertise it.

Stan


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [Wikitech-l] SVG upload?

body:
Frank v Waveren (fvw.wikipediaml at var.cx) [050123 14:45]:
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 08:07:25PM +1100, David Gerard wrote:

> > But I can't upload SVG. Is there a good reason for this, or is it just that
> > no-one thought of it?

> The filetypes allowable for uploads were hurriedly limited a while
> back because of abuse, I suspect it's just that nobody thought of SVG.

Does it check what the file actually is, or just check the extension?

- d.


from_name: Robin Shannon

body:
OK, im receptive to the idea (in fact i quite like it), but why is
information about the built enviroment special? why not a wikimedia
linux wiki, or potplant wiki, or people who are born on the 12th of
April wiki?

I guess im getting at a point which we all must ask ourselves. What
makes us who we are; and what is our mission. I think the stated
mission of spreading human knowledge, could apply to a whole lot of
things that would probably be deemed inaproprate....  or would they?

paz y amor,
[[User:The bellman]]

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:03:30 +0000, Christiaan Briggs
<christiaan at last-straw.net> wrote:
> Andre Engels wrote:
>
> >> Wikimedia's goal is the spread and promotion of knowledge.
> >> Wikibuilder's goal is the spread and promotion of knowledge of a
> >> large section of human understanding (relating to our very survival
> >> on this planet). Wikibuilder fits the ideals of Wikimedia, there
> >> really is no denying this.
> >
> > There's thousands of 'large sections of human understanding'.
>
> That wasn't actually the operative point. What's makes it compatible
> with Wikimedia's ideals is the fact that its goal is the spread and
> promotion of knowledge (it just happens to be a very large and
> important portion of knowledge). i.e. it fits the criteria for a new
> project proposal. Whether people think we should do it is another
> question. Conflating these two points isn't useful.
>
> > That's not enough to cut it for me. What is it that makes 'the built
> > environment' more suitable to such a treatment? What is it you want to
> > do in wikibuilder anyway? The term is rather vague, so I'd like to see
> > some more explanation.
>
> Take a look at:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikibuilder
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikibuilder
>
> Christiaan

--
hit me: robin.shannon.id.au
jab me: saudade at jabber.zim.net.au

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Recombo Plus License. To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wiki parser in JavaScript

body:
Pedro Fayolle schrieb:

>Hi,
>
>I've been coding a wiki parser in JavaScript with the hope it could be
>of some use for the project (especially in giving some relief to the
>servers).
>
>You can view a demo here: http://gusanos.sourceforge.net/wp/wikitest.htm
>
>
This works very well, but is it really a *parser* or "just" a
*converter*? Don't get me wrong, I fell for the same thing at least
twice :-)

Timwi and I (well, mostly Timwi) have been working on a *parser*
wiki-to-XML, written in Bison, a parser-generator language that outputs
C code. It is already pretty advanced (HTML parsing is currently kinda
broken, though), and having an XML file as output beats wiki-to-HTML, as
it can be converted into (X)HTML just as easily (relatively speaking;-)
as into PDF, OpenOffice XML, RDF, or something else entirely (even back
into wiki text, as a markup beautifier!).

So, if you've written a converter, well, great, but I wrote at least
three of them in C++, and abandoned them all in different stages of
development (at least one should do most of yours, including TOCs).
Language flamewars aside, I think exchanging the current PHP converter
for another is such a complex task (talking integration in the existing
framework) that "merly" improving conversion speed might not be worth
the effort.

If, however, you've written a "real" parser, it would be most
interesting to know if it could produce XML instead.

Anyway, you might like to look at the Bison code of Timwis parser, in
the CVS, module "flexbisonparse". You can try it with the CVS HEAD
wikipedia, if you follow the instructions in "ParserXML.php", in case
you're interested.

Magnus