from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
On Dec 8, 2006, at 9:59 AM, Bogdan Giusca wrote:

> Let's suppose we have a small country in a forgotten corner of the
> world.
>
> And let's assume that a local English-language website appeared out
> of nowhere, with no ads, hosted on the same server with official
> government sites (even the same IP!), has obviously the same
> designer and uses the same software with those government sites.
>
> That news source could even disagree with the government on minor
> point, in order to look independent and reliable. The only references
> in the mainstream press (e.g. The Economist) call it an "astroturfing"
> attempt of the government.
>
> Would you call this source "reliable", worthy to be used as for
> references in Wikipedia?
>
> And if there's a wikipedian who really loves this source, who agrees
> almost 100% to it and adds it to dozens of articles, reverting any
> attempt to remove it, what should we do?

The issue should be discussed in terms of it being a reliable source.
Obviously not in your example.

Fred


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
Abigail Brady wrote:
> On 12/8/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
>> So I believe that movie and TV episodes should be referenced to
>> published DVDs, _with proper identification_ (ASIN number or
>> publisher and catalog number) and _the time, to the minute_ at which
>> the line of dialog or event occurs.
>
> This is an excellent idea.  Do we have a standard way of citing things
> in this manner?  It would be of particular use in citing things from
> DVD commentaries, I think.

Way back when I first created the {{cite episode}} template I included a
"minutes into the episode" field, but another editor came along and
converted the format to match some particular style guide's preferences
and the field was removed. Should be straightforward to put it back.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061208/e0da3494/attachment.pgp


list: foundation-l

from_name: Michael Noda

subject: [Foundation-l] For your amusement

body:
On 12/5/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 12/5/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > As we have rather noisy men and women on the list :) and as gender
> > issues are very much on the agenda, I thought that the following will
> > amuse you.. The point; ideally the ratio between the sexes is 50/50. So
> > let us declare that there are no winners, only participants.
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6206084.stm
> >
> How do we know that's a woman, and not a man wearing a skirt?

The same way we know that the stick figure wearing trousers isn't a
woman wearing trousers: we don't.  For that matter, the stick figure
on the new signs might be a kilted Scotsman with long hair.

But the fact that there was no ill intent in having only
trouser-wearing stick figures, and that it could easily be read as
being equal before, doesn't mean that it's not friendlier and more
inclusive now.  I think we could all learn much from this example.
Thank you for pointing it out.  :-)

-Michael Noda (a non-Scottish man with long hair who has been
photographed wearing trousers, a skirt, or a kilt, at different times)


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] For your amusement


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Anne Milton (was Re: Attack blogs in WP:LIVING
	articles)

body:
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 05:44:17 -0500, "david at election.demon.co.uk"
<david at election.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>Hello! Politician discussing what gory details should be in the article
>>about another politician! Conflict of interest, anyone?

>Now that really does annoy me. Whatever happened to "This user is a
>Wikipedian and seeks to eschew other ideologies while building an
>encyclopedia"?

Yes, you've said that before.  But the fact remains that you are a
party political activist editing articles on politicians, and
frequently in a way which causes conflict with other editors, and this
is not the first time the criticism has been levelled at you either,
so perhaps you do have biases and are unable to discern them in your
own writing (which would only be human, after all).

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 06:04:37 -0500, "Daniel P. B. Smith"
<wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:

>So I believe that movie and TV episodes should be referenced to
>published DVDs, _with proper identification_ (ASIN number or
>publisher and catalog number) and _the time, to the minute_ at which
>the line of dialog or event occurs.
>
>Citations (with page numbers for print sources, or timings for video)
>serve two related purposes. First, if you do not actually plan to
>verify the citation, the fact that a timing is supplied is evidence
>(assuming good faith) that the contributing editor consulted the
>source rather than relying on memory. Second, if you do wish to
>verify the citation, it means that once you have obtained a copy of
>the source you can verify the citation with a reasonable amount of work.

One of the better points to be put thus far, IMO.

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


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Anne Milton (was Re: Attack blogs in
	WP:LIVING	articles)

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote
> <david at election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>Hello! Politician discussing what gory details should be in the article
> >>about another politician! Conflict of interest, anyone?
>
> >Now that really does annoy me. Whatever happened to "This user is a
> >Wikipedian and seeks to eschew other ideologies while building an
> >encyclopedia"?
>
> Yes, you've said that before.  But the fact remains that you are a
> party political activist editing articles on politicians, and
> frequently in a way which causes conflict with other editors, and this
> is not the first time the criticism has been levelled at you either,
> so perhaps you do have biases and are unable to discern them in your
> own writing (which would only be human, after all).

This area is covered in outline by [[WP:COI]]. Conflicted editors should back off (i.e. not press the point) in POV arguments. However potential conflict of interest should not be used as an argument in such disputes: it is not proper behaviour to bring it up and attempt to bludgeon other editors (with either declared or suspected COI). These points simply reflect our commitment to both of NPOV and AGF; whch are idealistic standards, maybe, but are thereby written into the COI guideline.

Understatement and being nice to people aren't wasted on Wikipedia.

Charles

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


from_name: Abigail Brady

subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
On 12/8/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
> So I believe that movie and TV episodes should be referenced to
> published DVDs, _with proper identification_ (ASIN number or
> publisher and catalog number) and _the time, to the minute_ at which
> the line of dialog or event occurs.

This is an excellent idea.  Do we have a standard way of citing things
in this manner?  It would be of particular use in citing things from
DVD commentaries, I think.

--
Abi


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
On 12/8/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Good point. One possibility is to source every episode which *doesn't*
> show this happening, which is somewhat burdonsome.

Especially in Star Trek, where you would have to review several
hundred hours of material to verify that something didn't happen.

> Another is to say
> that it *did* occur twice (and source the episodes); discovery and proof
> of other occurences is left as an exercise the reader. The third option
> is to find a secondary source which claims this, and (again) let the
> reader determine if it's valid or not; after all, we don't present The
> Truth, only what is verifiable

This is quite feasible.  In the case of Star Trek, there are excellent
episode and continuity guides available for at least the first four
series, etc.  Much of the trivia on our articles seems to be derived
ultimately from anecdotes recounted in these guides, but not
attributed.

--
Abi


from_name: Jeff V. Merkey

subject:
[Foundation-l] Cherokee Nation Chief endorses WMG Wikipedia Efforts
 to preserve Cherokee Language

body:
I am faxing a copy of a letter received from the Principal Chief of the
Cherokee Nation directed to the Wolf Mountain
Group which fully endorses the Wikipedia effort and its positive impact
on Cherokee Language preservation efforts
of the Wikimedia Foundation and Wolf Mountain Group.

Although the letter is more focused on Cherokee Language matters, it
characterizes the Wikipedia project
and content as "invaluable to the efforts of the Cherokee People to
preserve its language".

Jeff


from_name: florencedevouard

subject: [Foundation-l] Welcome to our three new board members

body:
Dear Community,

A few days ago, I wrote you a "short" email to give you feedback on the last board meeting, which occured in Florida. Reference: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/011869.html

As I promised, we welcome today 2 new board members, whom most of you already know, Mindspillage and Oscar (also known irl as Kat Walsh (us citizen, lady), Oscar van Dillen (dutch citizen, gentleman). Welcome to you both.

Tim Shell has chosen to resign from the board, effective 15th of december. At this date, he will be replaced by Jan-Bart de Vreede.

I would like first to give a special thank you to Tim Shell, whom I did not know at all 2 years ago, and whom I learned to appreciate. Tim has seen the birth of Wikipedia, be part of the first 4 years of life of the Foundation, and I hope he will keep an oldbie eye on it. Thank you Tim, and prosit (tchin, sant? etc...).

Let me introduce you Jan-Bart. We wanted to choose a more external guy, who could have another view on
our whole organisation. You may consider him external, since he hardly has any edits  :-) , was not member of any of the internal cabal mailing lists... so, it is our first attempt to introduce the "outside" in here.
At the same time, he is not a stranger. Many of us already met him, he was at the two wikimania. And several of us have been talking with him quite a bit in the past. Most recently, he got involved in the ED search committee (so, was unofficially already acting as an advisory board member). His name came as an evidence to us.
He is a young man of 36 (which is still younger than I). Married, two kids. Dutch (which means we have two dutch guys on the board...). He studied Business Administration at the Rotterdam School of Management (which may definitly be an asset in our organisation). He works for Kennisnet Foundation, THE dutch organisation for ICT use in Education.

Jan-Bart put a short bio about him on meta: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jan-Bart

So... I hope it is all good news for everyone. I am really glad we make that step. Welcome Kat, Oscar and Jan-Bart. And thank you Tim.

Ref: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Board_expansion

Ant

aka Florence Devouard
ChairChick of Wikimedia Foundation


body:
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 11:27:54 +0000, <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>This area is covered in outline by [[WP:COI]]. Conflicted editors
>should back off (i.e. not press the point) in POV arguments. However
>potential conflict of interest should not be used as an argument in
>such disputes: it is not proper behaviour to bring it up and attempt
>to bludgeon other editors (with either declared or suspected COI).
>These points simply reflect our commitment to both of NPOV and AGF;
>whch are idealistic standards, maybe, but are thereby written into the
>COI guideline.

Absolutely. If we excluded people on the basis of potential conflict
of interest we would have no encyclopaedia, but in my experience,
David presses the point long and hard, and that is precisely the point
Alphax was making, I think.

>Understatement and being nice to people aren't wasted on Wikipedia.

For sure.  And aggression and bluster are much less useful. Especially
when combined with forcefully pressing a point in a case where there
is a potential conflict of interest.

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


from_name: Brad Patrick

body:
As will be made clear from the revisions to the Foundation Bylaws and
the Board Expansion resolution adopted by the Board, your position is
overstated.  Your call did not fall on 'deaf ears' - far from it.  You
were heard.

The Board will be composed of a majority of individuals from the
community.  That does not require election of all board members, as you
would prefer, only some.  Given the fiduciary responsibility required of
all board members and the need for diverse talents, it is logical and
effective to appoint some persons and not rely on an open election
process for each position.

Also, Board positions have terms now.  They are not indefinite, as
Michael Davis, Tim Shell, and Jimmy Wales were in the past.  All will be
subject to reappointment at the conclusion of their term, unless they
resign earlier.

The Board will also be expanded in size.  At this time, the number is
now 7, up from 5.  It will increase further in the next year, probably to 9.

Your "principle" - that a "financial supporter" of the Foundation is
ineligible for board service - would seem to exclude a
disproportionately large number of very good people, including those who
may consider running for election.  It is also a rather short-sighted
view in light of the amounts of money at issue to support of the
Foundation (which include my paycheck and yours) to insist on a board
composed of elected individuals with no guarantee of any particular
business acumen.  Experience shows it may be rather difficult to recruit
business folks to stand for election, rather than appoint them to
fulfill a need at the board level.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, your desired direct election of
all board members exposes the danger of pure democratic rule - tyranny
of the majority.  It is possible, however remotely, that elections could
be hijacked by elements external to the Foundation's best interests.
Appointment through the election process rather than election as of
right prevents this from happening.

Each of these points was debated extensively by the Board during its
last two face-to-face meetings in October and December.  I am proud of
our Board, and for the deep consideration they have given to these
governance issues.

Brad Patrick

Tim Starling wrote:
> florencedevouard wrote:
>
>> Tim Shell has chosen to resign from the board, effective 15th of
>> december. At this date, he will be replaced by Jan-Bart de Vreede.
>>
>
> Out with one financial supporter of the Foundation and in with another. It
> seems my calls for democratic selection of Board members fell on deaf ears.
>
> I have nothing against Jan-Bart personally, just as I had nothing against
> Tim Shell. No doubt there were other factors that went into his selection
> besides his role in the Kennisnet hosting arrangement. But I have trouble
> believing that he would have been selected without it. I oppose his Board
> membership on principle, just as I continue to oppose that of Michael Davis.
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>


subject:
[Foundation-l] Cherokee Nation Chief endorses WMG Wikipedia
 Efforts to preserve Cherokee Language

body:
Jeff V. Merkey wrote:

>I am faxing a copy of a letter received from the Principal Chief of the
>Cherokee Nation directed to the Wolf Mountain
>Group which fully endorses the Wikipedia effort and its positive impact
>on Cherokee Language preservation efforts
>of the Wikimedia Foundation and Wolf Mountain Group.
>
>Although the letter is more focused on Cherokee Language matters, it
>characterizes the Wikipedia project
>and content as "invaluable to the efforts of the Cherokee People to
>preserve its language".
>
>Jeff
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
Someone at wikimedia may want to add some paper to the fax machine since
it has timed out twice. :-)

Jeff


body:
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 06:24:36 -0500, "david at election.demon.co.uk"
<david at election.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>Yes, you've said that before.  But the fact remains that you are a
>>party political activist editing articles on politicians, and
>>frequently in a way which causes conflict with other editors, and this
>>is not the first time the criticism has been levelled at you either,
>>so perhaps you do have biases and are unable to discern them in your
>>own writing (which would only be human, after all).

>Directly contrary to your repeated claims I have not been sanctioned
>for POV editing. There was no such finding in the arbitration case.
>Moreover Irishpunktom eventually agreed that he and I had produced a
>balanced article in the end.

If you read the para to which you are responding, you will see that I
said nothing of the sort.  Wikipedia is not politics, David, and your
use of the straw man fallacy is unhelpful.  What I said was that *you
are a party political activist editing articles on politicians, and
frequently in a way which causes conflict with other editors*.  That
does not imply that you are either right or wrong, only that your
style of editing, combined with your known interests and choice of
articles, causes conflict.

See also above, where your use of a deliberately misleading edit
summary is used to make accusations against others.  Why do that? It's
patently disruptive.  What is the point of doing something
deliberately in order to provoke a reaction you can then complain
about?

Nor do you appear to know who your friends are - I was against any
sanction when you edited Peter Tatchell in defiance of your ArbCom
ban, for example, and I unblocked you as soon as you undertook to stop
the edit war on this article.

Your entire on-Wiki persona comes across as aggressive, egotistical
and chippy.  And this always seems to be somebody else's fault...

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 11:44:54 +0000, "Abigail Brady"
<morwen at evilmagic.org> wrote:

>In the case of Star Trek, there are excellent
>episode and continuity guides available for at least the first four
>series, etc.  Much of the trivia on our articles seems to be derived
>ultimately from anecdotes recounted in these guides, but not
>attributed.

That would be much less of a problem (apart from possibly copyright,
of course) than repeating the claims and attributing them to episodes.

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


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Anne Milton (was Re: Attack blogs
	in	WP:LIVING	articles)

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote

> If we excluded people on the basis of potential conflict
> of interest we would have no encyclopaedia, but in my experience,
> David presses the point long and hard, and that is precisely the point
> Alphax was making, I think.

Well, take care you aren't going over the edge on the other issue I mentioned.

Specifically in relation to politics, and particularly in the matter of identifying 'political positions', I think there is a basic style point anyway. For any close follower of politics there may be an excessive interest in 'pinning the tail on the donkey': locating politicians on a spectrum, getting the ducks in a row as to exactly where they stand. When I talk about 'understatement', I think there are a number of stylistic points that ought to differentiate WP's coverage from that of someone very interested in partisan politics (from any angle). Something like this:

(a) Obviously membership of intra-party groups is OK to mention (if verifiable);
(b) Obviously labelling someone a Marxist, Eurosceptic, racist, whatever is not acceptable except as self-identification, or in the context of controversy that we should include and can support with sources;
(c) I notice plenty of 'epithetting' going on, with attempts to place labels like 'far right' on people next to a wikilink (rather than in the article itself); this is really not good, but is the kind of style people adopt either because they are imitating print journalism, or because they are a bit too interested in extremism;
(d) Closer to the Anne Milton thing: presumably anyone active in politics has some sort of 'portfolio' of positions one could research. What gets included and how does it get treated? I don't know, as an abstract question; US politicians in Congress tend to have their voting records recorded, but UK politics coverage usually doesn't focus on that. I do think that principles from the 'living persons biography' criteria can be applied, within reason. Basically there are things about a politician that are fairly 'salient', and should be included if verifiable. If other matters are raised in an article, one should wonder why they are there.

I don't suppose this will resolve the particular dispute, but it seems an interesting area to look into, in general terms.

Charles

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


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> You've just answered your own question.
>>
>
> Getting lucky is hardly a good method of verifying something... If it
> can't be verified promptly then we have a problem.
>
That's silly. Is verification not going to be prompt enough if I have to
wait for the library's copy of a book to be returned, or horror of
horrors, have to wait for interlibrary loan? Anyway, in these days of TV
fan websites, one is hard-pressed to find a show that doesn't have a set
of devotees that have complete collections of episodes that they'd be
willing to pass along, strictly unofficially for scholarly purposes, of
course. :-)

If the wouldbe verifier can't figure out how to follow the trail of
bread crumbs that is a document's references, that person is not really
competent to be doing the checking part.

Stan


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
> With respect to sources for Star Trek episodes: how did the
> contributing editors have access to those episodes?
>
> I've said before and still feel that if the episodes are available on
> commercially purchasable videos, they have been "published" in a way
> that is comparable to a print book.

I've never understood why people have suggested otherwise.

> So I believe that movie and TV episodes should be referenced to
> published DVDs, _with proper identification_ (ASIN number or
> publisher and catalog number) and _the time, to the minute_ at which
> the line of dialog or event occurs.

When we cite books, we usually specify publisher and edition, so doing
the same for DVDs etc seems reasonable. I'm not sure if we require
page numbers for book sources, if we don't we shouldn't require
timestamps for DVDs (although they would be good).

> If the episode has _not_ been published on commercial videos, then
> IMHO it is not verifiable. Of course, published print sources that
> describe the episode are fine.

There is certainly an issue with things that have been broadcast but
not released on DVD or equivalent. If we reject broadcast sources (as
impossible to verify, which they are), then we have to delete all
episode summaries and other articles relating to episodes that haven't
been released on DVD, which can often take a long time. There's a
limit to how much you can write just using secondary sources (for
example, can we cite Memory Alpha in a Star Trek article?). If it
weren't for copyright law, we could just link to a torrent...


body:
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 12:25:49 +0000, <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>> If we excluded people on the basis of potential conflict
>> of interest we would have no encyclopaedia, but in my experience,
>> David presses the point long and hard, and that is precisely the point
>> Alphax was making, I think.

>Well, take care you aren't going over the edge on the other issue I mentioned.

I'm trying not to.  David does not make that easy...

-----8<--------------

>(a) Obviously membership of intra-party groups is OK to mention (if
>verifiable);
>(b) Obviously labelling someone a Marxist, Eurosceptic, racist,
>whatever is not acceptable except as self-identification, or in the
>context of controversy that we should include and can support with
>sources;
>(c) I notice plenty of 'epithetting' going on, with attempts to place
>labels like 'far right' on people next to a wikilink (rather than in
>the article itself); this is really not good, but is the kind of style
>people adopt either because they are imitating print journalism, or
>because they are a bit too interested in extremism;
>(d) Closer to the Anne Milton thing: presumably anyone active in
>politics has some sort of 'portfolio' of positions one could research.
>What gets included and how does it get treated? I don't know, as an
>abstract question; US politicians in Congress tend to have their
>voting records recorded, but UK politics coverage usually doesn't
>focus on that. I do think that principles from the 'living persons
>biography' criteria can be applied, within reason. Basically there are
>things about a politician that are fairly 'salient', and should be
>included if verifiable. If other matters are raised in an article, one
>should wonder why they are there.

I agree with all of the above.  And I certainly don't think membership
of or activism for a political party are disqualifying factors, just
that one must be aware of one's own biases and prepared to step back
if they may be relevant.

What I believe is that if one has a potential conflict of interest
then (a) it should be declared and (b) one should be prepared to leave
the last word to others.  Is an active member of the opposing
political party likely to be ''perceived by readers'' as the best
arbiter of inclusion of negative content?  No more so than the subject
themselves I would say.

What I perceive here is a difference between "The Times covered this
little morsel during the election" and "Look what Tim Ireland says!
See, even The Times covered it!"

Moreover, Ireland's criticisms of Milton do not seem to have done her
any harm politically, and are therefore not in the same league as, say
the Salter camp's machinations against Jane Griffiths and the effect
that had on the candidacy of Tony Page (whose losing margin was tiny
despite his convictions for gross indecency).  Where is the evidence
that Ireland has had any significant effect on Milton's reputation or
public perception?

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
On 12/8/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> When we cite books, we usually specify publisher and edition, so doing
> the same for DVDs etc seems reasonable. I'm not sure if we require
> page numbers for book sources, if we don't we shouldn't require
> timestamps for DVDs (although they would be good).

It's a lot easier to skim a book or even look in its index, than it is
to listen through an unindexed movie-length commentary!

--
Abi


body:
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 07:41:20 -0500, "david at election.demon.co.uk"
<david at election.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>What I said was that *you are a party political activist editing
>>articles on politicians, and frequently in a way which causes conflict
>>with other editors*. That does not imply that you are either right or
>>wrong, only that your style of editing, combined with your known
>>interests and choice of articles, causes conflict.

>I think disingenuousness is unbecoming, Guy,

So do I, which is why I was unhappy about your disingenuous
characterisation of my statement.

>and your meaning was quite plain.

Indeed, which invites the question why you chose to misrepresent it as
something else.

>Given all you have said about me, you have a strange definition of
>'friend'.

Sometimes your friends tell you that you are an idiot.  This is
usually because you have been an idiot.  Choosing to interpret this as
enmity tends to mean that you rapidly run out of "critical friends".
Politicians tend not to want critical friends, Wikipedians need them.

It really does not matter at all what your interpretation is of the
content outcome when you are blocked, the fact that you *were*
blocked, several times, for revert warring and other disruptive
behaviour, is an indication that your manner of interaction with
others needs work, and that you have, as yet, failed to accept that
fact.

I am an argumentative, opinionated, grumpy, foul-mouthed middle-aged
git who spends half his Wikilife wrestling with trolls and POV-pushers
yet I still (miraculously) have an empty block log.  I like to think
this is because I can accept valid criticism, at least when offered
sufficiently bluntly that I get the point.  That could, of course, be
a piece of truly titanic hubris, but I would not be the best person to
judge that.  One thing I do *not* do is assert that I am always right.

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


body:
Jeff V. Merkey wrote:

I scanned the letter from Chief Smith into a PDF and emailed it to the
Foundation, since I cannot get the fax to go through. May be a problem
on our end. Email works though.

:-)

Jeff

> Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
>> I am faxing a copy of a letter received from the Principal Chief of
>> the Cherokee Nation directed to the Wolf Mountain
>> Group which fully endorses the Wikipedia effort and its positive
>> impact on Cherokee Language preservation efforts
>> of the Wikimedia Foundation and Wolf Mountain Group.
>> Although the letter is more focused on Cherokee Language matters, it
>> characterizes the Wikipedia project
>> and content as "invaluable to the efforts of the Cherokee People to
>> preserve its language".
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>>
> Someone at wikimedia may want to add some paper to the fax machine
> since it has timed out twice. :-)
>
> Jeff
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Could you point me in the direction of a legal copy of some recent TV
> shows, then?
>
> If someone recorded it, they might be able to show it to a few friends
> in the privacy of their own home, but much more than that and it's
> distributing a copyrighted work, and that's illegal.
>
That's like saying a published book is not a verifiable source because I
can't make more copies and pass those around to wouldbe checkers. If you
don't have a copy of the book I used, you're going to have to borrow it.
Some of the more addicted Wikipedians have even been known to *buy*
books in order to use them as references!

Stan


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

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

Thomas Dalton stated for the record:

> I'm not sure I understand the question... The only copies you can get
> hold of after a show airs and before it is released on DVD are
> illegal.

The copies stored on my TiVo are -- MPAA's wish list to the contrary --
perfectly legal.

My TiVo is attached to a very large [[storage area network]].

- --
 Sean Barrett     | A day without sunshine is like night.
 sean at epoptic.com |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFeeBs/SVOiq2uhHMRApWGAJ9IAsj9kKzJ/jf81arwv5BHDEJN2ACgirCO
DhPFq4z9v6rQHRWYN+DMS2M=
=pQBO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
> It's a lot easier to skim a book or even look in its index, than it is
> to listen through an unindexed movie-length commentary!

Non-fiction books, maybe. The equivalent of a TV episode on DVD is a
novel, though, and novels generally don't have indices.


from_name: Jeff Raymond

subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> You've just answered your own question.
>
> Getting lucky is hardly a good method of verifying something... If it
> can't be verified promptly then we have a problem.

Define "promptly," then?  Because I nkow a few articles I recently
finished that use materials only available in one library across the
country from me.  Will verification of those sources not be prompt enough
for someone in, say, Chicago?

-Jeff


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> That's like saying a published book is not a verifiable source because I
>> can't make more copies and pass those around to wouldbe checkers. If you
>> don't have a copy of the book I used, you're going to have to borrow it.
>> Some of the more addicted Wikipedians have even been known to *buy*
>> books in order to use them as references!
>>
>
> You don't need to make a copy of a book in order to read it, you can
> find an existing copy - probably in the library.
>
"Find an existing copy" is not always as easy as you seem to think. Many
books are quite scarce - my personal library includes volumes that are
probably the sole copies to be found within 500 miles, maybe more.
Wikipedians inside that radius are going to have to get to know me well
enough that I'll allow them to borrow, or hope that interlibrary loan is
available.

Stan


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Anne Milton (was Re: Attack
	blogs	in	WP:LIVING	articles)

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote

> What I believe is that if one has a potential conflict of interest
> then (a) it should be declared and (b) one should be prepared to leave
> the last word to others.

There is no official line on declaring anything, of course. No way Wikipedia could ever advise anyone to post personal information on the Internet. Your point (b), naturally, could be a deterrent to doing (a).

I will say that the general run of ArbCom cases involving various kinds of COI is not very encouraging to those who try to edit on through. I wouldn't say we rule out conflicted editors being good editors, at all, though.

You do have to be that extra bit level-headed to cope with adversarial or partisan behaviour in others, when you yourself are that bit too close to the topic. We are just closing a case that illustrates this very well. (This implicitly answers 'what is it that one can actually do about conflict of interest on the site?'; it is the same as for clever rather than crude POV pushing - you'd better stay out of court, and compromise.)

Charles

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


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 08/12/06, david at election.demon.co.uk <david at election.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Let me ask a single simple question, and anyone else feel free to
> pitch in with the answer.
> Suppose I do the "work" suggested above, what good will it do me?

You will become less likely to alienate others with your behaviour
when in fact correct, and your efforts are more likely to stay with
less effort?

- d.


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
On 12/8/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
>
> If the episode has _not_ been published on commercial videos, then
> IMHO it is not verifiable. Of course, published print sources that
> describe the episode are fine.

Of course it's verifiable. Verifiable means "able to be verified", not
"commercially available."


body:
"David Gerard" wrote

> On 08/12/06, david at election.demon.co.uk

> > Let me ask a single simple question, and anyone else feel free to
> > pitch in with the answer.
> > Suppose I do the "work" suggested above, what good will it do me?

> You will become less likely to alienate others with your behaviour
> when in fact correct, and your efforts are more likely to stay with
> less effort?

Can't be that simple. Can we award a plastic halo?

Charles

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


body:
On 08/12/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "David Gerard" wrote
> > On 08/12/06, david at election.demon.co.uk

> > > Let me ask a single simple question, and anyone else feel free to
> > > pitch in with the answer.
> > > Suppose I do the "work" suggested above, what good will it do me?

> > You will become less likely to alienate others with your behaviour
> > when in fact correct, and your efforts are more likely to stay with
> > less effort?

> Can't be that simple. Can we award a plastic halo?

I'm just amazed I'm having to explain to someone who's *in politics*
that learning to play nice with others is more likely to get you what
you want.

- d.


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] fundraising drive

body:
fyi, as could be expected... the fundrive is delayed of a few days :-)
It should probably start in a week (I said "should").

Anthere


subject: [Foundation-l] fundraising drive


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> In fact, the policy is even stronger. [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] says:
>
> ""Verifiable" in this context means that ***any reader*** should be
> able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been
> published by a reliable source." (emphasis mine)
>
I've always taken that just to mean that classified documents and the
like are out of bounds. We don't require that our references be
available as books on tape for the benefit of illiterate Wikipedians, or
that references are only English-language because not every reader knows
French - it might take some effort, but every reader can learn a foreign
language or hire a translator.

Stan


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
Bwahahaha, I've even used whiteout in them to subtly change what the
pages seem to say. Don't believe any source that hasn't been to the
forensic lab first!!

The Cunctator wrote:
> OMG Why should I trust a book in your library?
>
> On 12/8/06, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>
>>>> That's like saying a published book is not a verifiable source because
>>>>
>> I
>>
>>>> can't make more copies and pass those around to wouldbe checkers. If
>>>>
>> you
>>
>>>> don't have a copy of the book I used, you're going to have to borrow
>>>>
>> it.
>>
>>>> Some of the more addicted Wikipedians have even been known to *buy*
>>>> books in order to use them as references!
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You don't need to make a copy of a book in order to read it, you can
>>> find an existing copy - probably in the library.
>>>
>>>
>> "Find an existing copy" is not always as easy as you seem to think. Many
>> books are quite scarce - my personal library includes volumes that are
>> probably the sole copies to be found within 500 miles, maybe more.
>> Wikipedians inside that radius are going to have to get to know me well
>> enough that I'll allow them to borrow, or hope that interlibrary loan is
>> available.
>>
>> Stan
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
On 12/8/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Of course it's verifiable. Verifiable means "able to be verified", not
> > "commercially available."
>
> But how can you verify it? You would have to be lucky and find it
> being shown on TV, and it's often a long time after the first showing
> before any subsequent showings.

You've just answered your own question.


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [WikiEN-l] First fair use criterium

body:
On 12/8/06, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
[snip]
> He could very well mean that it's impossible for most celebrities, not for
> every celebrity in existence.
>
> It's obviously possible to get free pictures of *some* celebrities, but
> given a random celebrity, that random celebrity is probably not one of them.

I've never seen an argument based in fact that a non-trivial number
were members of the impossible set.

Because the very nature of being a celebrity usually implies some
willingness to be a publicly visible person it would be logical for us
to a begin from a position that such pictures are possible unless we
see specific evidence to the contrary.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
Then call it something other than "verifiable".

On 12/8/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You've just answered your own question.
>
> Getting lucky is hardly a good method of verifying something... If it
> can't be verified promptly then we have a problem.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [Foundation-l] Audited financial statements released!

body:
On 12/8/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
> You got cups? And all you had to do was months and months of digging
> through records and spreadsheets, trying to reconcile the mess.
>
> Erik Moeller wrote:
> > On 12/9/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Our audit firm, Gregory Sharer & Stuart
> >> (www.gsscpa.com), worked with us for the past several months to help us
> >> comply with all of the requirements such an audit demands.
> >>
> >
> > They also gave us cool free cups. Don't forget the cups! ;-)

The foundation should go to Cafe Press and create a "WikiMedia
Foundation's Finances got Audited, and All I got was this Lousy Cup"
Coffee mug.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

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

Thomas Dalton stated for the record:
>> The copies stored on my TiVo are -- MPAA's wish list to the contrary --
>> perfectly legal.
>
> Sure, that's legal.
>
>> My TiVo is attached to a very large [[storage area network]].
>
> That probably isn't. Distributing a copyrighted work is illegal -
> that's pretty much the entire point of copyright law.

Who said anything about distributing?  Not I.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | A day without sunshine is like night.
 sean at epoptic.com |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFefeT/SVOiq2uhHMRAsiUAJ9VArMwa2/8OJIQVAHoKHnhtVwTiACgpyps
xHri/TB6U9+pE5qZh2V40IQ=
=EAcL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Luna

subject: [WikiEN-l] One hell of a month to take off

body:
Arbcom elections are up. Autoblocking has some new features (can be
disabled, can also whitelist certain ranges).

I got to pet a kitten, also. *nod*

Welcome back. =D

On 12/8/06, ikiroid <ikiroid at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So I went on wikibreak from November 10 to now, and I come back to find
> GNAA
> deleted, Esperanza nominated for deletion, and half a million wikiprojects
> created. Did I miss anything else big?
>
> Iki
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Travis Derouin

subject: [Wikitech-l] ImportFreeImages Extension

body:
I've converted some code we've been using into an extension for importing
properly licensed photos from flickr into a Mediawiki installation:

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ImportFreeImages

It makes use of the phpFlickr package for the API calls.

Feel free to play around with it here:

http://wikidiy.com/mediawiki-1.8.2/index.php/Special:ImportFreeImages

Travis


body:
Brad Patrick wrote:

Big milestone achieved. Congrats Brad.

Jeff

>Dear Wikimedia Foundation community:
>
>It is my pleasure to announce the public release of audited financial
>statements of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. for fiscal years 2004, 2005
>and 2006 inclusive.  This represents a significant step forward in the
>life of the Foundation.  Our audit firm, Gregory Sharer & Stuart
>(www.gsscpa.com), worked with us for the past several months to help us
>comply with all of the requirements such an audit demands.  We assumed
>this responsibility ourselves, to demonstrate to the community and the
>world that the Foundation has complied with its obligations under law
>and generally accepted accounting principles.
>
>I want to specially thank the members of the audit team, Michael Davis
>and Danny Wool, and our auditors Rick Caton, Mili Protic, and Melanie
>Cloran for their hard work, patience, and good natured approach to this
>unusual organization.  We appreciate their efforts.
>
>Links to the financial statements and management letter:
>
>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/28/Wikimedia_2006_fs.pdf
><http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/28/Wikimedia_2006_fs.pdf>
>
>and
>
>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/6/69/Wikimedia_2006_Mgmt_Letter.pdf
><http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/6/69/Wikimedia_2006_Mgmt_Letter.pdf>
>
>Wikimedia Foundation continues to grow at an astonishing rate.  In the
>coming days, you will see more information about the fundraiser we are
>planning, which will include the opportunity to have donations made to
>the Foundation matched by generous individuals and companies who support
>our efforts.  With our audit complete, Wikimedia Foundation is now
>listed as a charitable organization at Guidestar (www.guidestar.org) and
>its partner sites, which will extend our visibility in the
>not-for-profit community.
>
>You will also see "what it takes to run Wikipedia for a year" - a
>glimpse of the financial challenges we face trying to maintain our role
>as a top website on the planet, with a skeleton staff and
>ever-increasing demand for the educational content created by you, our
>community of editors and contributors.  Anonymous visitors will also be
>reminded that Wikimedia Foundation is a *charitable organization*,
>something which distinguishes us from the YouTubes and MySpaces spoken
>in the same breath as Wikipedia as the "Web 2.0" vanguard.  We aren't
>for sale.  There won't be a Wikipedia IPO.  We can't be bought by a
>company, any more so than the Red Cross or Amnesty International.
>
>What sets us apart is our mission, vision and community.  What keeps us
>going, though, requires an growing infrastructure, staff, and money.
>
>On behalf of the Foundation,  thank you!
>
>Brad Patrick
>Interim Executive Director & General Counsel
>Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
On 12/8/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Define "promptly," then?  Because I nkow a few articles I recently
> > finished that use materials only available in one library across the
> > country from me.  Will verification of those sources not be prompt
> enough
> > for someone in, say, Chicago?
>
> It doesn't need to be promptly verifiable by everyone. A TV show that
> can't be seen legally is not verifiable by anyone.

How does that follow? And the goalposts are moving -- just because there
aren't commercially available copies doesn't make watching a copy of a show
illegal, much as the recording industry would like it to be so.

See Betamax v. Universal<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._v._Universal_City_Studios>
.

We shouldn't be
> relying on illegal copies and fansite summaries for our sources.

Again, what "illegal copies"?

I wish I could think of a way to make it work - I'm very active in
> WikiProject Stargate and we use episodes as sources all the time - but
> a source no-one can access is not verifiable.

Obviously someone is accessing the sources. You have a strange definition of
"no-one".

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
On 12/8/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > How does that follow? And the goalposts are moving -- just because there
> > aren't commercially available copies doesn't make watching a copy of a
> show
> > illegal, much as the recording industry would like it to be so.
> >
> > See Betamax v. Universal<
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._v._Universal_City_Studios>
>
> You can make copies for personal use, showing them to anyone else
> would be illegal.

That's not true.

We can't rely on people having seen the show or
> recorded it themselves when it was originally aired.

> Again, what "illegal copies"?
>
> I'm not sure I understand the question... The only copies you can get
> hold of after a show airs and before it is released on DVD are
> illegal.

That is not true.

> Obviously someone is accessing the sources. You have a strange definition
> of
> > "no-one".
>
> Yes, they accessed them once when it was shown on TV. Saying that
> people having seen in on TV counts as verifying it would be like
> saying you can cite "People seeing him outside the supermarket" as the
> source of the fact that a certain celebrity shops there on the grounds
> that anyone that was at the supermarket on that day can verify it.

Again, people do record shows. Perfectly legally.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
My friend has a bunch at his home.

On 12/8/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Could you point me in the direction of a legal copy of some recent TV
> shows, then?
>
> If someone recorded it, they might be able to show it to a few friends
> in the privacy of their own home, but much more than that and it's
> distributing a copyrighted work, and that's illegal.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Puppy

subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> You've just answered your own question.
>>
>
> Getting lucky is hardly a good method of verifying something... If it
> can't be verified promptly then we have a problem.
>
>
You mean, drive through verification? Instant gratification? I'm sorry,
how prompt would you consider acceptable?


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
Oh cripes.

On 12/8/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My friend has a bunch at his home.
>
> That means your friend, and maybe a few people that know him can
> verify it. That's not enough - it needs to be verifiable by a large
> number of people, otherwise it could be a simple hoax.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
Look: only people with access to nuclear reactors and extreme training can
verify what's in any number of Wikipedia entries on nuclear physics.

It COULD all be a DANGEROUS HOAX foisted upon us by scientists.

I mean, what proof do I have that the half-life of Polonium-210 is actually
138.376 days? Maybe it's really 139.24 days. Maybe Polonium-210 doesn't EVEN
EXIST.

Only a few select people with access to Polonium-210 can verify that
information.

But EVERY SINGLE ONE of those people can.

Similarly, maybe only a few people have access to Star-Gate episode #23. But
if they say that in that episode Cmdr. Pickett gets eaten by a Florgbernian
Rumpox, then I'm willing to ASSUME GOOD FAITH.

On 12/8/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But Cunc dealt with this. 'Verifiable' is an in-principle thing. It is
> distinct from saying everyone can do homebrew fact-checking on anything
> mentioned. Verifiability on Wikipedia can't simply be a sceptics' charter:
> that really would be a problem.
>
> Verifiable means we can actually verify it to be true. Not in
> principle, but in practise. The whole point of verifiable sources is
> that we can be sure we don't have things stated on Wikipedia that
> aren't true - some vague kind of hypothetical verifiability doesn't
> help that.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
We talk about both verifiability and reliability.

You are not the end authority on Wikipedia.

On 12/8/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
wrote:
>
> "Thomas Dalton" wrote
>
> > > But Cunc dealt with this. 'Verifiable' is an in-principle thing. It is
> distinct from saying everyone can do homebrew fact-checking on anything
> mentioned. Verifiability on Wikipedia can't simply be a sceptics' charter:
> that really would be a problem.
>
> > Verifiable means we can actually verify it to be true. Not in
> > principle, but in practise. The whole point of verifiable sources is
> > that we can be sure we don't have things stated on Wikipedia that
> > aren't true - some vague kind of hypothetical verifiability doesn't
> > help that.
>
> No, that's not what we mean, and has never been what we mean. And you seem
> to be conflating things. We don't talk (much) about "verifiable sources": we
> base everything on "reliable sources". We talk about verifiable edits,
> really: we want to constrain editors into only adding material that is
> verifiable, from reliable sources, accessible to them. Some of the most
> reliable sources, in the scholarly sense, are some of the least accessible
> to the general public. (And, frankly, reliability of newspaper reports can
> vary inversely with circulation. And scholarly monographs with the best
> information on particular matters are apparently now printed in runs as low
> as 300.)
>
> So when you say "Verifiable means we can actually verify it to be true",
> that is not the kind of statement on which so much can be built.
>
> Charles
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
> Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
> Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
It also means anyone else who happened to tape it. If my friend claimed to
have a copy of an episode which noone else in the world had ever seen, that
would be one thing.

What you're talking about is a bit far on the paranoid axis.

On 12/8/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My friend has a bunch at his home.
>
> That means your friend, and maybe a few people that know him can
> verify it. That's not enough - it needs to be verifiable by a large
> number of people, otherwise it could be a simple hoax.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 14:41:39 +0000, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
wrote:

>I'm just amazed I'm having to explain to someone who's *in politics*
>that learning to play nice with others is more likely to get you what
>you want.

Not met many politicians, have you? ;-)

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


body:
On 08/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 14:41:39 +0000, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
> wrote:

> >I'm just amazed I'm having to explain to someone who's *in politics*
> >that learning to play nice with others is more likely to get you what
> >you want.

> Not met many politicians, have you? ;-)

Mostly I know a lot of party hacks, who generally *do* understand that
politics works better if you apply a bit of ... politics ;-)

- d.


from_name: Anthony

body:
On 12/8/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
> As will be made clear from the revisions to the Foundation Bylaws and
> the Board Expansion resolution adopted by the Board, your position is
> overstated.  Your call did not fall on 'deaf ears' - far from it.  You
> were heard.
>
> The Board will be composed of a majority of individuals from the
> community.  That does not require election of all board members, as you
> would prefer, only some.  Given the fiduciary responsibility required of
> all board members and the need for diverse talents, it is logical and
> effective to appoint some persons and not rely on an open election
> process for each position.
>
> Also, Board positions have terms now.  They are not indefinite, as
> Michael Davis, Tim Shell, and Jimmy Wales were in the past.  All will be
> subject to reappointment at the conclusion of their term, unless they
> resign earlier.
>
> The Board will also be expanded in size.  At this time, the number is
> now 7, up from 5.  It will increase further in the next year, probably to 9.
>
This is all great to hear.  Thanks to the board members who came up
with and supported this.  Sure, some compromises were evidently made,
but it's great to see a majority elected board and terms for the rest
of the positions.  Combined these two changes ensure that over time
the board is essentially entirely chosen by the community, a minority
just chosen indirectly.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
Why should I believe a scientific paper or textbook?

On 12/8/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I mean, what proof do I have that the half-life of Polonium-210 is
> actually
> > 138.376 days? Maybe it's really 139.24 days. Maybe Polonium-210 doesn't
> EVEN
> > EXIST.
>
> It's not difficult to get access to a scientific paper or a textbook
> that states the half-life. You don't have to be able to verify that
> something is true, you need to be able to verify that the source given
> really says when it's being claimed it says.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Astroturfing -- fabricating your own sources

body:
On 12/8/06, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
> Let's suppose we have a small country in a forgotten corner of the world.
>
> And let's assume that a local English-language website appeared out
> of nowhere, with no ads, hosted on the same server with official
> government sites (even the same IP!), has obviously the same
> designer and uses the same software with those government sites.
>
> That news source could even disagree with the government on minor
> point, in order to look independent and reliable. The only references
> in the mainstream press (e.g. The Economist) call it an "astroturfing"
> attempt of the government.
>
> Would you call this source "reliable", worthy to be used as for
> references in Wikipedia?
>
> And if there's a wikipedian who really loves this source, who agrees
> almost 100% to it and adds it to dozens of articles, reverting any
> attempt to remove it, what should we do?

I appears unlikely that your example is hypothetical what case do you
have in mind.

--
geni


body:
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 17:23:42 +0000, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

>I appears unlikely that your example is hypothetical what case do you
>have in mind.

Maybe this
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dnestrovskaya_Pravda&diff=prev&oldid=92945791

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


from_name: ikiroid

body:
So I went on wikibreak from November 10 to now, and I come back to find GNAA
deleted, Esperanza nominated for deletion, and half a million wikiprojects
created. Did I miss anything else big?

Iki


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

references:
<20061208213545.VUJW17393.aamtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@smtp.ntlworld.com>
	<a4359dff0612081340w170e3d1cs285a4da5d3de2430@mail.gmail.com>
	<dfd0b40612081353l7675caedtc9d0800eafae0e91@mail.gmail.com>
	<a4359dff0612081401o779a2fb0wa633a897f2300cf3@mail.gmail.com>
	<dfd0b40612081415hc0aa8d5k310fb0d2aed9c8af@mail.gmail.com>
	<a4359dff0612081422u42518eb3g9c3e6aefa91acc7a@mail.gmail.com>

body:
If someone says that in Episode X of Show Y this happened, I can't imagine
why I wouldn't believe it.

And I can imagine any number of ways by which if I *had* to I could verify
such claim, including going to the production company or the Museum of
Television and Radio or asking on craigslist to view such episode.

On 12/8/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why should I believe a scientific paper or textbook?
>
> You don't have to believe it. If you choose not to believe the source,
> that's fine, but we have a policy on what sources we consider
> reliable. A few fans of a TV show is not on that list.
>
> If you disagree with Wikipedia's definition of reliable, you should
> try and get consensus to change it. Until you do, that's the
> definition we go by, and by that definition, a scientific paper is
> reliable, a random fan of a TV show is not.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

body:
> From: Luna <lunasantin at gmail.com>

> For example, I doubt you'd find many
> objections to using a company's own information page, when looking
> for the
> date a company was founded; for more complex or potentially
> controversial
> information, however, getting information from third party, neutral
> sources
> is probably preferred.

Just being argumentative here... on the whole you're right but even
in such simple matters some degree of skepticism is advisable. When
the source is the company's own website, it's not a bad idea to use
qualified phrasing like "XYZ gives its founding year as so-and-so"
rather than "XYZ was founded in so-and-so."

A good example is the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company, which
claims "Established 1895" and claims to be "The oldest  movie company
in America:" http://www.biographcompany.com/about_us_home.html . Our
article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
American_Mutoscope_and_Biograph_Company , gives a more complete view
of what turns out to be a "complex and potentially controversial" story.

_University_ founding dates are tricky, because they are or were
traditionally an important point of prestige and govern the order of
march in academic processions. The University of Bologna gets to
march ahead of Oxford, for example. Therefore, universities are
strongly motivated to make a case for the earliest possible date,
however tenuous. An egregious example of this is the University of
Pennsylvania, which tries to have it both ways. Penn rather likes the
founding narrative that gives it a nonsectarian origin, closely
associated with Benjamin Franklin and his "Proposals for the
Education of Youth in Pensilvania." Unfortunately, that leads a
founding date of 1749, making it three years younger than Princeton.
So, in 1899, Penn officially adopted a position that identifies its
origins, rather tenuously, with a firebrand proto-Methodist George
Whitefield. To prove the truth of this narrative, they added a statue
of Whitefield on campus to accompany the various statues of Franklin.
This enabled them to claim a founding date of 1740, beating Princeton.

William and Mary was founded in 1693, closed in 1882, then re-opened
in 1888. Did that break the chain or not? Is the institution that
opened in 1888 really "the same" one that closed?

Corporate spinmeisters are quite fond of concocting warm and fuzzy
"origins" tales, and other stories that confirm the company's
preferred view of disputes involving lawsuits, patents, priorities,
and the like. Parker Brothers (Hasbro)'s website tells the story
(http://www.hasbro.com/monopoly/default.cfm?page=history) of how
Charles B. Darrow of Germantown, Pennsylvania invented the game in
1934. From their website, one would never guess that anything
"complex or potentially controversial" about the matter. Fortunately,
our article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_%28game%29 , does
not rely solely on Hasbro as its source.

Trust, but verify.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
On 12/8/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > For an edit to be verifiable it has to be verifiable by someone other
> > than the person that made the edit. We're not talking about
> > reliability of sources - it's obvious that a TV show is a perfectly
> > reliable primary source - we're talking about whether someone else can
> > come along and check that what the original editor said is true
> > (assuming the source is right - a wikipedia article can never be more
> > reliable than the sources it uses). It's not necessary that everyone
> > be able to verify it, but a reasonable number of reasonably
> > unconnected people should be able to, otherwise we're open to any
> > number of hoaxes.
>
> In fact, the policy is even stronger. [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] says:
>
> ""Verifiable" in this context means that ***any reader*** should be
> able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been
> published by a reliable source." (emphasis mine)
>
> I'm not sure if I agree with that policy, but that's what the policy says.

I'm sure I don't agree with it. I worked on the verifiability policy a while
ago to get it to a rational place. Clearly *any reader* can't check every
source used on Wikipedia -- some people just don't have access to the
Widener Library, for example, or read French.

"Any reader" cannot verify that Cmdr. Pickett gets eaten by a Florgbernian
> Rumpox in Stargate episode 23 if said Stargate episode isn't publicly
> available for viewing.

We had been talking about commercially available, not publicly available.
Those are two different things.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
OMG Why should I trust a book in your library?

On 12/8/06, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
> >> That's like saying a published book is not a verifiable source because
> I
> >> can't make more copies and pass those around to wouldbe checkers. If
> you
> >> don't have a copy of the book I used, you're going to have to borrow
> it.
> >> Some of the more addicted Wikipedians have even been known to *buy*
> >> books in order to use them as references!
> >>
> >
> > You don't need to make a copy of a book in order to read it, you can
> > find an existing copy - probably in the library.
> >
> "Find an existing copy" is not always as easy as you seem to think. Many
> books are quite scarce - my personal library includes volumes that are
> probably the sole copies to be found within 500 miles, maybe more.
> Wikipedians inside that radius are going to have to get to know me well
> enough that I'll allow them to borrow, or hope that interlibrary loan is
> available.
>
> Stan
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
On 12/8/06, Tim Starling <tstarling at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> I have nothing against Jan-Bart personally, just as I had nothing against
> Tim Shell. No doubt there were other factors that went into his selection
> besides his role in the Kennisnet hosting arrangement. But I have trouble
> believing that he would have been selected without it. I oppose his Board
> membership on principle, just as I continue to oppose that of Michael Davis.

In addition to what Brad said, I should point out that the
Kennisnet-Wikimedia relationship is not coincidental. Kennisnet's
purpose is to assist the educational sector in ICT use, and to develop
educational content. See more information about their mission here:
http://www.kennisnetictopschool.nl/international/

This is not a for-profit selling nudie pictures. Having spoken to many
people in the eLearning sector, Kennisnet is very much a name that is
known internationally. It's an organization that we would have built
bridges to under any circumstances, given the clear overlap of
interests. They are supporting us (including software development
projects) not because it's good PR, but because it makes sense for
them to do so.

Jan-Bart personally brings skills and knowledge to the Board that are
very much needed, given his long time management experience, his broad
network of contacts, and his solid understanding of eLearning
technology. If we want projects like Wikiversity and Wikibooks to
succeed, we need to draw from people outside the community of editors,
people who have been working in those areas for many years.

Appointing Jan-Bart to replace Tim Shell was not a reward for
Kennisnet's involement. As a matter of fact, due to conflict of
interest policies, Jan-Bart will now have to recuse himself from being
the number one point-man for Wikimedia in the Kennisnet organization.
Nor was this a shoe-in -- other names were floated and seriously
considered. We appointed him because we deeply believe that he will
greatly help our organization in the coming years.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.


from_name: Brad Patrick

body:
Dear Wikimedia Foundation community:

It is my pleasure to announce the public release of audited financial
statements of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. for fiscal years 2004, 2005
and 2006 inclusive.  This represents a significant step forward in the
life of the Foundation.  Our audit firm, Gregory Sharer & Stuart
(www.gsscpa.com), worked with us for the past several months to help us
comply with all of the requirements such an audit demands.  We assumed
this responsibility ourselves, to demonstrate to the community and the
world that the Foundation has complied with its obligations under law
and generally accepted accounting principles.

I want to specially thank the members of the audit team, Michael Davis
and Danny Wool, and our auditors Rick Caton, Mili Protic, and Melanie
Cloran for their hard work, patience, and good natured approach to this
unusual organization.  We appreciate their efforts.

Links to the financial statements and management letter:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/28/Wikimedia_2006_fs.pdf
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/28/Wikimedia_2006_fs.pdf>

and

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/6/69/Wikimedia_2006_Mgmt_Letter.pdf
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/6/69/Wikimedia_2006_Mgmt_Letter.pdf>

Wikimedia Foundation continues to grow at an astonishing rate.  In the
coming days, you will see more information about the fundraiser we are
planning, which will include the opportunity to have donations made to
the Foundation matched by generous individuals and companies who support
our efforts.  With our audit complete, Wikimedia Foundation is now
listed as a charitable organization at Guidestar (www.guidestar.org) and
its partner sites, which will extend our visibility in the
not-for-profit community.

You will also see "what it takes to run Wikipedia for a year" - a
glimpse of the financial challenges we face trying to maintain our role
as a top website on the planet, with a skeleton staff and
ever-increasing demand for the educational content created by you, our
community of editors and contributors.  Anonymous visitors will also be
reminded that Wikimedia Foundation is a *charitable organization*,
something which distinguishes us from the YouTubes and MySpaces spoken
in the same breath as Wikipedia as the "Web 2.0" vanguard.  We aren't
for sale.  There won't be a Wikipedia IPO.  We can't be bought by a
company, any more so than the Red Cross or Amnesty International.

What sets us apart is our mission, vision and community.  What keeps us
going, though, requires an growing infrastructure, staff, and money.

On behalf of the Foundation,  thank you!

Brad Patrick
Interim Executive Director & General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.


from_name: Delphine Ménard

body:
On 12/8/06, florencedevouard <anthere at anthere.org> wrote:
> Dear Community,
>
> A few days ago, I wrote you a "short" email to give you feedback on the last board meeting, which occured in Florida. Reference: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/011869.html
>
> As I promised, we welcome today 2 new board members, whom most of you already know, Mindspillage and Oscar (also known irl as Kat Walsh (us citizen, lady), Oscar van Dillen (dutch citizen, gentleman). Welcome to you both.
>
> Tim Shell has chosen to resign from the board, effective 15th of december. At this date, he will be replaced by Jan-Bart de Vreede.

Welcome to Oscar and Kat, and a future welcome to Jan-Bart. I am
convinced that the expansion of the board is a great step towards
sustainability for the Wikimedia Foundation and that all three will be
a great asset to achieve all the things still left to do.

I personally want to thank Tim Shell for the insight he has provided
us with in the past few months, and hope, to echo Florence's words,
that he will stay around to see through the things he has started to
push forward in the organisation.

Delphine
--
~notafish
NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.


from_name: James Hare

body:
What? Give me cups! And a mini-fridge! And a place to put it and plug it in!

And a large case of Bawls-brand caffeine sugarwater!

On 12/8/06, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> On 12/9/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Our audit firm, Gregory Sharer & Stuart
> > (www.gsscpa.com), worked with us for the past several months to help us
> > comply with all of the requirements such an audit demands.
>
> They also gave us cool free cups. Don't forget the cups! ;-)
> --
> Peace & Love,
> Erik
>
> Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
>
> DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
> in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
> position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
Next big milestones to achieve:

-- Stable revisions
-- Single user login
-- Complete financial security
-- At least 1,000 featured articles on every Wikipedia
-- The completion of Nupedia's third article.

On 12/8/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>
> Brad Patrick wrote:
>
> Big milestone achieved. Congrats Brad.
>
> Jeff
>
> >Dear Wikimedia Foundation community:
> >
> >It is my pleasure to announce the public release of audited financial
> >statements of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. for fiscal years 2004, 2005
> >and 2006 inclusive.  This represents a significant step forward in the
> >life of the Foundation.  Our audit firm, Gregory Sharer & Stuart
> >(www.gsscpa.com), worked with us for the past several months to help us
> >comply with all of the requirements such an audit demands.  We assumed
> >this responsibility ourselves, to demonstrate to the community and the
> >world that the Foundation has complied with its obligations under law
> >and generally accepted accounting principles.
> >
> >I want to specially thank the members of the audit team, Michael Davis
> >and Danny Wool, and our auditors Rick Caton, Mili Protic, and Melanie
> >Cloran for their hard work, patience, and good natured approach to this
> >unusual organization.  We appreciate their efforts.
> >
> >Links to the financial statements and management letter:
> >
> >
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/28/Wikimedia_2006_fs.pdf
> ><
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/28/Wikimedia_2006_fs.pdf
> >
> >
> >and
> >
> >
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/6/69/Wikimedia_2006_Mgmt_Letter.pdf
> ><
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/6/69/Wikimedia_2006_Mgmt_Letter.pdf
> >
> >
> >Wikimedia Foundation continues to grow at an astonishing rate.  In the
> >coming days, you will see more information about the fundraiser we are
> >planning, which will include the opportunity to have donations made to
> >the Foundation matched by generous individuals and companies who support
> >our efforts.  With our audit complete, Wikimedia Foundation is now
> >listed as a charitable organization at Guidestar (www.guidestar.org) and
> >its partner sites, which will extend our visibility in the
> >not-for-profit community.
> >
> >You will also see "what it takes to run Wikipedia for a year" - a
> >glimpse of the financial challenges we face trying to maintain our role
> >as a top website on the planet, with a skeleton staff and
> >ever-increasing demand for the educational content created by you, our
> >community of editors and contributors.  Anonymous visitors will also be
> >reminded that Wikimedia Foundation is a *charitable organization*,
> >something which distinguishes us from the YouTubes and MySpaces spoken
> >in the same breath as Wikipedia as the "Web 2.0" vanguard.  We aren't
> >for sale.  There won't be a Wikipedia IPO.  We can't be bought by a
> >company, any more so than the Red Cross or Amnesty International.
> >
> >What sets us apart is our mission, vision and community.  What keeps us
> >going, though, requires an growing infrastructure, staff, and money.
> >
> >On behalf of the Foundation,  thank you!
> >
> >Brad Patrick
> >Interim Executive Director & General Counsel
> >Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >foundation-l mailing list
> >foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
The Google stock was a donation.

Andrew Gray wrote:
> On 08/12/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Links to the financial statements and management letter:
>>
>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/28/Wikimedia_2006_fs.pdf
>> <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/28/Wikimedia_2006_fs.pdf>
>>
>
> Curiosity compels me to ask: how exactly did we wind up with 187
> shares of Google stock? Either this is a routine investment, or a
> hilariously wacky story, and I can't decide which one I want it to
> be...
>
>


body:
On 12/8/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> Curiosity compels me to ask: how exactly did we wind up with 187
> shares of Google stock? Either this is a routine investment, or a
> hilariously wacky story, and I can't decide which one I want it to
> be...

It's is not at all unusual for people to make donations of stock, at
least not unusual for other orgs.


body:
You got cups? And all you had to do was months and months of digging
through records and spreadsheets, trying to reconcile the mess.

Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 12/9/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Our audit firm, Gregory Sharer & Stuart
>> (www.gsscpa.com), worked with us for the past several months to help us
>> comply with all of the requirements such an audit demands.
>>
>
> They also gave us cool free cups. Don't forget the cups! ;-)
>


body:
/me makes a note to take a picture of the mugs.

Puppy wrote:
> You got cups? And all you had to do was months and months of digging
> through records and spreadsheets, trying to reconcile the mess.
>
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>> On 12/9/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Our audit firm, Gregory Sharer & Stuart
>>> (www.gsscpa.com), worked with us for the past several months to help us
>>> comply with all of the requirements such an audit demands.
>>>
>>>
>> They also gave us cool free cups. Don't forget the cups! ;-)
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>


body:
25 minutes have passed and Anthony DiPiero has not commented.  I win my bet!

On 12/8/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/8/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
> > You got cups? And all you had to do was months and months of digging
> > through records and spreadsheets, trying to reconcile the mess.
> >
> > Erik Moeller wrote:
> > > On 12/9/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Our audit firm, Gregory Sharer & Stuart
> > >> (www.gsscpa.com), worked with us for the past several months to help
> us
> > >> comply with all of the requirements such an audit demands.
> > >>
> > >
> > > They also gave us cool free cups. Don't forget the cups! ;-)
>
> The foundation should go to Cafe Press and create a "WikiMedia
> Foundation's Finances got Audited, and All I got was this Lousy Cup"
> Coffee mug.
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Brad Patrick
General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
bradp.wmf at gmail.com
727-231-0101


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
On 08/12/06, Abigail Brady <morwen at evilmagic.org> wrote:
> On 12/8/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > Since there are only two such occasions it should not be difficult to
> > identify the two episodes.
>
> Ah, but how do you source the fact that it isn't seen in any other episodes?
> This is not a facetious question by the way.

A while ago, I was writing an article on a notorious vanity-published
and remarkably self-publicising author. (We'd just deleted a big
swathe of articles on his books, and references to them in every
article imaginable... and, for reasons which may not be entirely
unrelated to vindictiveness, AFD kept his article but deleted
everything else. So, of course, we needed to write something decent
and sourceable on him)

The problem is, it's astonishingly difficult to provide an actual,
reality-based, response to claims of fame and success. Barring quoting
someone in the publishing industry saying "who is this guy?", what can
we do? We can't quote the fact that his books aren't available in
normal bookshops, that they don't exist on bestseller lists or in any
library - because we can't cite the absence of something.

> Do we have something against academic fraud: such as, say, adding
> something as a "Source", apparently without having read it, or even
> having a good idea of its contents from other sources,

This is often a simple misconception - "sources" become "references",
references gets misinterpreted as "further reading". Most problematic
with adding URLs, of course, but I've seen apparent good-faith
drive-by inclusions of sources with no actual edits made to the
article.

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


body:
But the condition of the bet was that I am supposed to comment, and because
of that, you're supposed to do an Irish jig.

On 12/8/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 25 minutes have passed and Anthony DiPiero has not commented.  I win my
> bet!
>
> On 12/8/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 12/8/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
> > > You got cups? And all you had to do was months and months of digging
> > > through records and spreadsheets, trying to reconcile the mess.
> > >
> > > Erik Moeller wrote:
> > > > On 12/9/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Our audit firm, Gregory Sharer & Stuart
> > > >> (www.gsscpa.com), worked with us for the past several months to
> help
> > us
> > > >> comply with all of the requirements such an audit demands.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > They also gave us cool free cups. Don't forget the cups! ;-)
> >
> > The foundation should go to Cafe Press and create a "WikiMedia
> > Foundation's Finances got Audited, and All I got was this Lousy Cup"
> > Coffee mug.
> >
> >
> > --
> > -george william herbert
> > george.herbert at gmail.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Brad Patrick
> General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> bradp.wmf at gmail.com
> 727-231-0101
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
Well just today we added Mindspillage, Oscar from Dutch Wikipedia, and some
guy named Jan-Bart to the Board of Trustees.

On 12/8/06, ikiroid <ikiroid at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So I went on wikibreak from November 10 to now, and I come back to find
> GNAA
> deleted, Esperanza nominated for deletion, and half a million wikiprojects
> created. Did I miss anything else big?
>
> Iki
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Aphaia wrote:
> On 12/8/06, florencedevouard <anthere at anthere.org> wrote:
>
>>Dear Community,
>>
>>A few days ago, I wrote you a "short" email to give you feedback on the last board meeting, which occured in Florida. Reference: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/011869.html
>>
>>As I promised, we welcome today 2 new board members, whom most of you already know, Mindspillage and Oscar (also known irl as Kat Walsh (us citizen, lady), Oscar van Dillen (dutch citizen, gentleman). Welcome to you both.
>
>
> I would like to know it before ... as we were informed about Patrick
> Brad as coming interim ED. Well, Promotion subcom will be working to
> update [[Wikimedia:Board of Trustees]] properly? Or new borad members
> would like to edit it directly for now? Or it will appear after
> December 15?

Kat and Oscar became board members today at 00 UTC (or UTC+1, unclear).
Jan-Bart will be on the 15th, but given that people are likely to wonder
about him, it may be best to start working on his bio as soon as possible.
I presume all three will be happy to help provide bio. Jan-Bart does not
have yet an account (did not at least 4 hours ago) so should get one.
Meanwhile, the meta bio can be used.

> I put a brief note on the Home. Copyediting will be appreciated.
>
> Well, and I would like the Board to give us priorities for
> translators, since around December 15, we have several things need to
> manage including:
> - Information about new board
> - Fundraising
> - Audited (and huge) ducuments, perhaps need a PDF editor
> - Disclaimer (translation ongoing)

Start with disclaimer

Fundraising pitch is ready. Translation can start. However, I need to
add the links. Will do tonight or tomorrow morning. I'll keep you
informed on that.

Continue with information about new board.

As soon as more fundraising data is produced, fundraising becomes top
priority.

Audited doc to do later. It is long, so it will take time. No need
exhausting ourselves.

> If we have a sorted list on the items above, I will be more than happy
> and expect we translators can work the most effectively ... when we
> are back (now 2:02 am, I go to bed now ......)
>
> n8,

Good night :-)

ant


from_name: Bogdan Giusca

body:
Let's suppose we have a small country in a forgotten corner of the world.

And let's assume that a local English-language website appeared out
of nowhere, with no ads, hosted on the same server with official
government sites (even the same IP!), has obviously the same
designer and uses the same software with those government sites.

That news source could even disagree with the government on minor
point, in order to look independent and reliable. The only references
in the mainstream press (e.g. The Economist) call it an "astroturfing"
attempt of the government.

Would you call this source "reliable", worthy to be used as for
references in Wikipedia?

And if there's a wikipedian who really loves this source, who agrees
almost 100% to it and adds it to dozens of articles, reverting any
attempt to remove it, what should we do?


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
> From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com>
>

> If someone says that in Episode X of Show Y this happened, I can't
> imagine
> why I wouldn't believe it.
>
> And I can imagine any number of ways by which if I *had* to I could
> verify
> such claim, including going to the production company or the Museum of
> Television and Radio or asking on craigslist to view such episode.

If someone (e.g. 68.80.254.34) says:

"Third floor of College Hall at Penn has an Episcopalian Chapel. On
the wall states that Penn was founded by the Anglican Church of
England. Go there and read it," would you say that "I can't imagine
why I wouldn't believe it?"

Anyone _could_ travel to Philadelphia and visit College Hall. Does
that make the fact verifiable?

How about this one.

In the 1960s, I _know_ that someone at Digital, and I'm _almost
certain_ it was Alan Kotok, told me that one of the reasons why DEC
changed its name from DEC to Digital was that they wanted to head off
a potential trademark dispute with the Dairy Equipment Corporation of
Madison, Wisconsin ("DEC International.") I put in our article on
Digital. Someone challenged it and removed it. I couldn't find a
source. I emailed Alan Kotok about a year ago, asking if he
remembered it.

My source is Alan Kotok. It's too bad that he didn't remember it, and
even sadder that he is now deceased. But I'm sure it's true and I'm
almost sure I heard it from him. Should I put it back in the article?
I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't believe me.


from_name: Oldak Quill

subject:
[Foundation-l] Cherokee Nation Chief endorses WMG Wikipedia
	Efforts to preserve Cherokee Language

body:
On 08/12/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>
> I am faxing a copy of a letter received from the Principal Chief of the
> Cherokee Nation directed to the Wolf Mountain
> Group which fully endorses the Wikipedia effort and its positive impact
> on Cherokee Language preservation efforts
> of the Wikimedia Foundation and Wolf Mountain Group.
>
> Although the letter is more focused on Cherokee Language matters, it
> characterizes the Wikipedia project
> and content as "invaluable to the efforts of the Cherokee People to
> preserve its language".

A fantastic endorsement. It serves to show that Wikimedia's support
for small languages is one of our most important endeavours.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l] Nazi userboxes

body:
On 30 Nov 2006 at 13:37, "john ask me later" <bockspur at gmail.com>
wrote:

> If the IP address is german or austria then wiki can remove the swastika
> image and
> any reference to holocaust denial since they violate local laws, otherwise
> it's
> a personal page; ignore it.

Is it Wikipedia's job to enforce local law all around the world?  Do
we need to check for Iranian IP addresses and suppress images of
women not wearing veils, and check for Chinese IP addresses and
suppress politically incorrect references to Tibet, Fulan Gong, or
Tiananmen Square?

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/


from_name: Sean Whitton

body:
You make some strong arguments, but when you say the 'majority of the
board' coming from the community, how many is this? Additionally, how
many of these are elected and how many are selected, so to speak?

Thanks,
Xyrael

On 08/12/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
> As will be made clear from the revisions to the Foundation Bylaws and
> the Board Expansion resolution adopted by the Board, your position is
> overstated.  Your call did not fall on 'deaf ears' - far from it.  You
> were heard.
>
> The Board will be composed of a majority of individuals from the
> community.  That does not require election of all board members, as you
> would prefer, only some.  Given the fiduciary responsibility required of
> all board members and the need for diverse talents, it is logical and
> effective to appoint some persons and not rely on an open election
> process for each position.
>
> Also, Board positions have terms now.  They are not indefinite, as
> Michael Davis, Tim Shell, and Jimmy Wales were in the past.  All will be
> subject to reappointment at the conclusion of their term, unless they
> resign earlier.
>
> The Board will also be expanded in size.  At this time, the number is
> now 7, up from 5.  It will increase further in the next year, probably to 9.
>
> Your "principle" - that a "financial supporter" of the Foundation is
> ineligible for board service - would seem to exclude a
> disproportionately large number of very good people, including those who
> may consider running for election.  It is also a rather short-sighted
> view in light of the amounts of money at issue to support of the
> Foundation (which include my paycheck and yours) to insist on a board
> composed of elected individuals with no guarantee of any particular
> business acumen.  Experience shows it may be rather difficult to recruit
> business folks to stand for election, rather than appoint them to
> fulfill a need at the board level.
>
> Finally, and perhaps most importantly, your desired direct election of
> all board members exposes the danger of pure democratic rule - tyranny
> of the majority.  It is possible, however remotely, that elections could
> be hijacked by elements external to the Foundation's best interests.
> Appointment through the election process rather than election as of
> right prevents this from happening.
>
> Each of these points was debated extensively by the Board during its
> last two face-to-face meetings in October and December.  I am proud of
> our Board, and for the deep consideration they have given to these
> governance issues.
>
> Brad Patrick
>
> Tim Starling wrote:
> > florencedevouard wrote:
> >
> >> Tim Shell has chosen to resign from the board, effective 15th of
> >> december. At this date, he will be replaced by Jan-Bart de Vreede.
> >>
> >
> > Out with one financial supporter of the Foundation and in with another. It
> > seems my calls for democratic selection of Board members fell on deaf ears.
> >
> > I have nothing against Jan-Bart personally, just as I had nothing against
> > Tim Shell. No doubt there were other factors that went into his selection
> > besides his role in the Kennisnet hosting arrangement. But I have trouble
> > believing that he would have been selected without it. I oppose his Board
> > membership on principle, just as I continue to oppose that of Michael Davis.
> >
> > -- Tim Starling
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
?Sean Whitton	(Xyrael)	[sean at silentflame dot com]
	Knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty.


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
> Of course it's verifiable. Verifiable means "able to be verified", not
> "commercially available."

But how can you verify it? You would have to be lucky and find it
being shown on TV, and it's often a long time after the first showing
before any subsequent showings.


body:
Friday, December 8, 2006, 7:36:30 PM, Guy wrote:

> On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 17:23:42 +0000, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

>>I appears unlikely that your example is hypothetical what case do you
>>have in mind.

> Maybe this
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dnestrovskaya_Pravda&diff=prev&oldid=92945791

yes.

The articles discussing these sites are:

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7252974
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7258534

There is some report on Tiraspol Times in Radio Free Europe, too:

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/09/794de55d-f342-4f9d-8f1a-534a6ea58b78.html