body:
> British actions after the invasion of Poland in 1939.

Incase you are not aware of this Anglo-German relations were hostile
at the time-what with Hitler promising to conquer Britain and all.
Even otherwise, in 1939 the U.K did not declare war UNTIL the 3rd of
September, when Hitler launched a blitzkreig on France. It was at this
point that England realised that the Nazis were seriously intent on
conquering England. Only when it became clear that Hitler was going to
invade England after France fell (which was pretty obvious), did the
U.K declare war on Germany. It must be noted here that upto that point
of time Britain had been following a "policy of appeasement" allowing
Hitler to attack and conquer Austria, and Mussolini to invade
Abyssinia (now called Ethiopia) to deter the fascist leaders from
concentrating their efforts on Britain. Britain did not wage war on
Germany till the former realised that war was, in fact, inevitable.
Thus, the U.K's actions were by no means well-intentioned. Also while
we're talking about Britain, I hope you know the atrocities committed
by that country in it's colonies-have you heard of the Jallianwallah
Bagh Massacre?Or the Andaman Cellular Jail? Verify your facts before
putting them forward.As for the battle of Vienna, The Polish King had
been made the Commander-in-Chief of the Christian forces (if I may
call it that). So naturally Poland would have to take part.And
diplomacy in it's present form did not exist in the 17th century (when
marriages between empires were the only forms of "treaties). Show me
MODERN examples-i.e in the last 100-150 years.

First we have no links to the US goverment. Secondly we are
> mostly writen by europeans
> Wikipedia-english is written by Americans or  people who come from countries which are U.S allies (U.K Australia etc.). To put in a nutshell-white people. Secondly as I explained the general perception is that Wikipedia is an American organization. Also, though China may not actually send the Peoples' Army into St. Petersburg FL, it is highly likely that Wikimedia will be sued for violating it's own policies which state that the Wikimedia sites may not be used to break local laws.
> geni
> _______________________________________________
>
>


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Google indexes quickly!

body:
On May 14, 2006, at 8:40 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:

> Heh, ok, but by "what's the lesson", I mean, in what way, if any,
> should Wikipedia consider changing its policies considering there is
> now such a big payoff for people adding vanity information.

*shrug* Just need to enforce CSD more stringently, that's all.

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


from_name: BJörn Lindqvist

subject: [WikiEN-l] We need to recognize that advocating is a basic right

body:
> >> * The right to leave
> >> * The right to fork
> >
> > Those are your enforceable legal rights; however, you also have the
> > right to participate on an equal basis in the project; the right to
> > be treated with respect; and the right to a fair hearing should your
> > rights not be respected or should you be accused of violating the
> > rights of others. Just because you cannot go into a court and enforce
> > Wikipedia policies does not mean that they do not exist and are not
> > upheld.
> >
> > Fred
> >
>
> What next? All users have the right to interpret policy as /they/ see
> fit? The customer is always right? Anyone who disagrees with being
> blocked will be unblocked? Any page which someone objects to the
> deletion of shall be kept? Any POV-whitewashing shall be acceptable?

I'm sorry to hear that you disagree, but you can always:

* fork
* leave

--
mvh Bj?rn


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Ilmari Karonen

subject: [Wikitech-l] nofollow in user: space

body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> It's in bugzilla.
>
> But I think the conclusion of the last discussion on this was that we
> should enable no follow on all of enwiki like the others.

Have I missed that one?  I've seen several people suggest that nofollow
should be enabled elsewhere on enwiki, but the idea of using it in the
main namespace seems to be controversial at best.

FWIW, I tend to agree.  Enable it, yes, but only outside NS_MAIN.

--
Ilmari Karonen


from_name: Earthhope Action Network

subject: [WikiEN-l] to Jimmy Wales re:Chinese firewall

body:
Freedom of speech is always a good thing. Having governments or governmental
type bodies that try to control and oppress speech is always a bad thing.
Thanks, Jimbo for what you said. ~ Maggie User:thewolfstar ~ blocked
indefinitely for openly defying cabal admins and their spies. ps Please see
your talk page and note an entire week was deleted from April 1-21,
2006</wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_7>
where I posted a comment trying to save Wikipedia
--
in peace and justice for the wildthings,
Margie Laupheimer  http://earthhopenetwork.net/
-------------- next part --------------
This comment was posted on your talk page in the last week of April. The entire last week of April has been deleted completely. I and many others who dissent the strong left-wing, communist socialist or strong right-wing
dominance in Wikipedia and heavy-handed banning of dissenting or objecting editors get blocked repeatedly or banned. I am banned indefinitely - done in secret, page protected, and my unblock request removed. This whole place they call Wikipedia Community is a horrible scary place. just amended for below. Maggie User:thewolfstar

Hi Jimbo,
I am a researcher who loves Wikipedia and up until recently, used it frequently in her research. Because of the following I am afraid to rely on the neutrality in many articles there now.

I joined Wiki March 22 and have had a horrendous experience dealing with a group of editors (that includes some admins). The many bizarre events that have occurred, started when I made an admittedly clumsy edit on [[The Democratic Party (of the United States)]] article. This article reads like an ad for the Democratic Party. It took a week to get changes made but some did get made, due to my perseverance. I will admit that. But I am stronger and more persevering than most. Most editors who wish to add nonbiased edits to political articles, get discouraged, repeatedly blocked or banned altogether by the group's admins. The work on verifying and neutralizing this article is far from done.

There are quite a few who have the same difficulty, amazingly with the same group of editors. The longer I stay at Wiki, the huger this group becomes. I have gathered strong evidence and can show, that a large group of editors are controlling political and controversial articles on Wikipedia. They harass, insult, ignore, maneuver and conspire to remove any editing of their articles, that attempt to improve their articles with a neutral point of view. They are often editors who use original content in their articles. It doesn't take much looking around to see that most, if not all, of this group are left-wing leaning editors. ( I am neither left or right wing.) I do believe in the neutrality of articles in an encyclopedia, and the importance of them being fact based.

All day I have been blocked by an admin (KillerChihuahua) I have admittedly taunted these people back all day but I am in jail and have no recourse to defend myself. I just found your blog. I am being blocked illegally by Wiki Blocking page rules, I believe. They are threatening me with a long block or ban- because I haven't shut up.

At the risk of asserting the existence of a conspiracy, an accusation you probably have heard before, I will say the following.

Does this group form a cabal or conspiracy? From what I gather, yes and no. I don't think many of it's members are aware that they are part of a larger conspiracy, and that they are being used by the conspirators, to do their dirty work. (Though the members tend to consist of nasty vindictive pedants who write rfc's, etc.) Is the larger conspirator group ''the Democratic Party'', or a faction of the the Democratic Party? Possibly. I can't make this claim for sure. But in any case, due to their underhanded and mean efforts, it is nonetheless almost impossible to make improving changes to their articles, cabal or not. Furthermore, the articles that are guarded wih iron gates are the ones that have a biased point of view towards the Democrats and against everyone else. Many  articles that represent any view that differs from the left-wing are similarly guarded.

I fear for Wikipedia's reputation. I'm afraid that as a direct result of this group's ironclad policies, and the articles that can be now found on Wikipedia, other groups, outside Wikipdia with an opposing view or having objections, may files law suits on Wikipedia, thereby destroying it financially. I believe this  to be a legitimate concern. Again, I love Wikipedia and if this were to happen I would be personally devastated.

If you are interested in urls that show evidence of my claims I would be more than happy to provide them. I have many such urls, too many for this entry to your blog.

In respect and sincere concern for the future integrity and existence of Wikipedia,
and thanks for reading

''Maggie''thewolfstar

thewolfstar at gmail.com

Margie Laupheimer
59 Hickory Hill Road
Kerhonkson, NY 12446

845-626-2815

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Just posted 4-25-06 on JImmy's blog

Thank You for Commenting

Your comment has been received. To protect against malicious comments, I have enabled a feature that allows your comments to be held for approval the first time you post a comment. I'll approve your comment when convenient; there is no need to re-post your comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

4-26-06

jimbo's email


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Tearing down the Chinese Firewall

body:
Rob wrote:

>On 5/13/06, Prasad J <prasad59 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Actually I believe it was you who brought this up on the mailing list
>>Anthony,although I do agree that this is not a matter which is within
>>the scope of this list. I must however mention here that you claim the
>>Chinese citizens are being *oppressed* by their Governemnt. I,
>>personally, also feel the same way, but then let us not forget that
>>these policies are put in place by an elected Government-perhaps for
>>legitimate reasons- and the said laws are a part of China's internal
>>affairs. So for us to pass judgement on this matter would not be
>>entirely fair-since we are both citizens of other countries.
>>
>>
>Were the US government to put into place certain policies "protecting" its
>citizens from certain information on the Internet, no doubt you'd start
>complaining about jackbooted thugs and the like.  I don't particularly care
>what you think about the US government, but I don't think the Chinese
>government should escape similar condemnation because of an accident of
>geography.
>
Some factions in the US government would be very keen to "protect"
citizens.  You begin with obvious topics like suppressing kiddie-porn,
and lever things up from there.  There's a big fat middle ground of the
population who are willing to allow responsibility to be dictated by
fear just to make sure that any criminality is suppressed; they feel no
obligations to protect other minorities from friendly fire.

Ec


from_name: charles matthews

body: Please can we have this thread moderated. Charles


from_name: Prasad J

body:
Britain did not "like" Germany but as I explained war was inevitable.
It was only a question of which country made the first move-this
country would also perhaps have the advantage of being the first to
act. This much was obvious from Hitler's actions. And I urge you to
re-read your history book, Germany declared war on France in 1939
itself. And if Britain really wanted to help countries threatend by
the Nazis, why didn't the U.K  intervene when Hitler attacked Austria,
or for that matter when Mussolini invaded Abyssinia? Britain had many
colonies in Africa, they could have helped the Abyssinians if they
wanted to. Answer these two questions. Secondly as I stated the Battle
of Vienna does not count as an example since at that time diplomacy
(in it's present form) was not existent. As for the "logical
fallacies" you foynd when I highlighted the atrocities committed by
the U.K in India to advance the Crown's agendas there, I will not
honour your "objection" with a reply. Although no U.S laws may be
broken as a result of this act there are international laws in place
to regulate internet-related issues.

PS-What does skin colour have to do with it? As a side-note (unrelated
to this discussion) can you name one (active) Arb Com member who is
South Asian-as in of Indo-Aryan descent?Or an Arbitrator who is
Muslim?No offence but I am pretty sure there are South-Asian and
Muslim editors out there. Only none of them will be voted into ArbCom.
This is not to say the present Arbitrators are not fair-I've
interacted with one of them so I know they are. Just making an
interesting observation.


body:
Prasad J wrote:

>Although I agree with you guys that these censorship laws are unfair,
>I do believe that there are other organizations (like the U.N or the
>International Human Rights Commission) to deal with (what we consider)
>oppression. However not even the U.N has the authority to prevent
>people from being prosecuted for breaking laws which were legislated
>upon by elected Governments-in this case the Chinese Government.Again,
>let us note an important point-the present Government of China is an
>elected one,
>
I must be missing something here.  I was looking for the Wikipedia
article which gives detailed results of the last national election in
China.  People interested in such things are usually pretty quick at
adding this kind of information.  Maybe it's not linked properly?  Could
you provide a link to the article that contains these results?

>it is not a military junta or a dictatorship so it will
>be rather difficult for us to actually prove that they are suppressing
>the Chinese in the manner in which (for example) the North Korean
>Government oppresses its people.The Chinese government is receiving
>some flak from the international community as a result of these
>policies, however as the Chinese Government has pointed out-these are
>their internal affairs. Having said this, I do stand by my earlier
>statement that to aid Chinese citizens in their efforts to break the
>law of their land (even if the said law is unjust) is tantamount to
>abetting a crime.
>
Providing technical information is different from telling people what to
do with it.

Ec


body:
 "Prasad J" wrote

> Why, because some people are raising arguements against it, in a
> sensible, decent manner? As far as I can see, neither I nor anyone
> else has used profanities etc. which could be seen as reaons to
> moderate this thread. Nontheless go ahead if that is what you deem
> right.

Because it is rambling, off-topic, and not properly threaded.  For example,
this mail is a reply but contains no clue to what it is replying to.  Please
note that this mailing list has a specific purpose.

Charles


body:
You are delibrately refusing to understand the arguements put forth by
me in an effort to "win" this "debate". You have an incredibly
idealistic view of world politics, and do not seem to comprehend what
diplomacy is about. I suggest once again that you brush up on your
history so as to be convinced that Britain (definitely) has not done
anything for another nation without a hidden agenda favouring the
British Crown. As for my "logical fallacies", you may engage me in
your trivial wordplay but I hope you realise that the atrocities
committed by the British on the Indian freedom-fighters (who, followed
a path of non-violence) will serve as a reminder to coming generations
of the lengths to which the English were ready to go in order to
secure their political objectives. In today's world, it is probably
the U.S which is following this policy of "power and influence at all
costs" The attempts to encourage subversive movements in China in
order to spread capitalist U.S propaganda in that country (in the name
of intellectual freedom) are only evidence of this. Again, Geni your
statement "...like most of the world they (Britain) weren't bothered
about the rights of Africans" casts light on the Caucasian belief in
their superiority over other races and even over the Asian-Aryans-who
are basically of the same race as Nordic people (the "harrenvolk). You
yourself have conceded that the U.K would help Poland (which was a
Causasian country, in close proximity to England), but not Abyssinia.
This proves that England's help was (at the least) racist in nature. I
rest my case.


body:
Once again, you have avoided the issue? Also, what you were doing
(twisting my words to make them appear like admissions of logical
fallacies) IS trivial wordplay. Also am I to assume you have no
comments to make on the racist policies adopted by the British
Government?


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Wikitech-l] nofollow in user: space

body:
On 5/14/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > It's in bugzilla.
> >
> > But I think the conclusion of the last discussion on this was that we
> > should enable no follow on all of enwiki like the others.
>
> Have I missed that one?  I've seen several people suggest that nofollow
> should be enabled elsewhere on enwiki, but the idea of using it in the
> main namespace seems to be controversial at best.
>
> FWIW, I tend to agree.  Enable it, yes, but only outside NS_MAIN.

Enwiki is the only wikipedia without it on the main NS.
If you go to the old vote and exclude the users who didn't make any
substantial contributions to English Wikipedia after the vote you'll
find that the results were overwhelmingly in favor of enabling
nofollow.

As for the recent discussion, see the thread here:
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-April/006867.html

I agree that enabling it outside of the main ns is completely
uncontroversial and should be done immediately. I could argue either
way about use in the main NS, but there are two points which make up
my mind:

1) The evidence I posted in the above linked thread clearly
demonstrates that we are not executing editorial oversight of our
externals. Thus the fact that Wikipedia links to something isn't an
indication that the content isn't crap... we link to spyware, add
fodder, etc.. We have articles with more external links than the
number of edits they get per-month...  If we could demonstrate that
we're making a good effort to insure that all our links are well
selected and not just SEO fodder, then the situation would be
different.
2) Google thinks we should enable it.


body:
Prasad J wrote:

>Like I said, the Chinese government probably has it's reasons for
>doing what it does. And even if you do bring down this firewall-do you
>really think the government will just admit defeat? As for 1989, could
>the U.S or any other nation do anything during the  Tien-a-mien
>massacre? No. Because each country has the right to manage it's own
>affairs-even if that may see unfair to us.
>
Including Sudan?

>Countries don't go out of
>their way to help each other without there being something for them to
>gain The U.S is not trying to bring democracy to China in the interest
>of goodwill, the former has major geo-political interests in two
>emerging powers (China and India) the Americans are just trying to
>achieve their longterm goals by bringing about a change in the Chinese
>government so that when the U.S tries to better it's ties with that
>nation, it will not be accused of supporting the oppressive Peoples'
>Government. If indeed America wanted to rescue the oppressed why did
>it turn a blind eye to Tibet and (more importantly) the Rwandan
>genocide?
>
Tibet is a part of China because it was given to them by the British
after WWI to keep it out of the hands of the Russians.  The British have
profitted greatly by giving away what nevr belonged to them.  It's a
trick they learned from Napoleon.

Rwanda has no strategic importance.

Ec


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [WikiEN-l] Google indexes quickly!

body:
On 14/05/06, Mathias Schindler <neubau at presroi.de> wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> > That's impressive - you add a link to a disambig page, and less than 3
> > hours later you're the number one hit on Google.
> >
> > What's the lesson here?
>
> Version 1: Luck.
>
> Version 2: Google Sitemaps support for Mediawiki on Wikipedia.org is
> working fine.
>
> Version 3: Brion has launched a secret google agreement during his visit
> in Mountain View.

All three. :)

Rob Church


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Google indexes quickly!

body:
On 5/14/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Heh, ok, but by "what's the lesson", I mean, in what way, if any,
> should Wikipedia consider changing its policies considering there is
> now such a big payoff for people adding vanity information.
>
> Steve

Turn back on new page creation by users that aren't logged in?

Anthony


from_name: Neil Harris

subject: [WikiEN-l] Google indexes quickly!

body:
Mathias Schindler wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
>
>
>> That's impressive - you add a link to a disambig page, and less than 3
>> hours later you're the number one hit on Google.
>>
>> What's the lesson here?
>>
>
> Version 1: Luck.
>
> Version 2: Google Sitemaps support for Mediawiki on Wikipedia.org is
> working fine.
>
> Version 3: Brion has launched a secret google agreement during his visit
> in Mountain View.
>
>

Version 4: Google has added special-case code to their crawler engine
that scan, say, Recent Changes, and spiders new material in near-real-time.

-- Neil


subject: [WikiEN-l] Google indexes quickly!

body:
On 14/05/06, Neil Harris <neil at tonal.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> Version 4: Google has added special-case code to their crawler engine
> that scan, say, Recent Changes, and spiders new material in near-real-time.

This would require them to start ignoring meta tags containing
instructions to robots, since recent changes (and other special pages)
have "noindex,nofollow" set.

Google are teh evil!

Rob Church


body:
On 5/14/06, Prasad J <prasad59 at gmail.com> wrote:
> PS-I suggest Sean that you rent a DVD of the Richard Attenborough
> movie "Gandhi". You will find that very often a soft-spoken, elderly
> "half-naked fakir" has more courage and willpower than the most
> decorated military commander.

You're the only one talking about military commanders here.  Reading a
banned copy of Wikipedia is hardly a violent military rebellion.

Anthony


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [Wikitech-l] nofollow in user: space

body:
On 5/14/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
> Have I missed that one?  I've seen several people suggest that nofollow
> should be enabled elsewhere on enwiki, but the idea of using it in the
> main namespace seems to be controversial at best.
>
> FWIW, I tend to agree.  Enable it, yes, but only outside NS_MAIN.

I concur - haven't seen concensus for enabling it in the main
namespace. Haven't seen any argument against enabling it in the user,
user:talk etc namespaces, though.

Steve


body:
On 5/13/06, Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> Elected? In what sense? It's a one-party system, the CPC doesn't tolerate
> any serious opposition. Maybe you should read:

Even more confusing is Singapore - according to what I read on the
wikipedia article recently, this is the first election since the
eighties that hasn't been won by *default* - in most, more than half
the seats were uncontested. And in this one, they won by something
like 88 out of 92 seats.

Now that is a situation to confuse any democracy supporter.

Steve


body:
Sean Barrett wrote:

>Prasad J stated for the record:
>
>
>>Having said this, I do stand by my earlier
>>statement that to aid Chinese citizens in their efforts to break the
>>law of their land (even if the said law is unjust) is tantamount to
>>abetting a crime.
>>
>>
>And there you have a wonderful summary of the difference in attitudes
>often seen between Americans and those who did not build their country
>on the violent overthrow of established government.  I, in apparent
>contrast to Prasad, believe that whenever any form of government --
>whether elected or not -- becomes destructive of its people's
>unalienable rights, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.
>
Jefferson would have agreed with this.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] You got mail...

body:
On 5/13/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> See http://abk24.livejournal.com/6260.html, pretty much routine now,
> when an astroturfing article gets removed we see a flood of brand new
> or anonymous users coming along to AfD and DRV because of our
> "censorship" and our violation of their "right" to promote their pet
> crank in the encyclopaedia.

How inefficient. They should have just provided the URL of the edit
link, rather than 3 screenshots and instructions how to navigate
there.

Steve


subject: [Wikitech-l] Is "Wikipedian:" category space possible?

body:
On 5/13/06, Lars Aronsson <lars at aronsson.se> wrote:
> One alternative, at least in theory, could be to introduce
> globally unique login names and keep all user pages and
> "wikiproject" portals on meta, not only for all languages of
> Wikipedia, but for all projects.  Then categories such as "users
> who speak Danish" could reside on meta, once and for all.
> Wikiprojects on meta could be designed to address multiple
> languages and multiple projects, synchronizing Wikipedia with
> Wikisource and Wiktionary.

That actually sounds like a pretty sensible idea. Twould be cool if we
could transclude from metawiki onto en for example, for user pages.

And similarly for commons - most commons user pages say "try fr or er"
or similar.

Steve


body:
Prasad J wrote:

>PS-I suggest Sean that you rent a DVD of the Richard Attenborough
>movie "Gandhi". You will find that very often a soft-spoken, elderly
>"half-naked fakir" has more courage and willpower than the most
>decorated military commander. You will also learn that though the
>Indian freedom-fighters may not have retaliated even in the face of
>brutal British suppression, the fact that they stood by their beliefs
>inspite of the sheer physical and mental agony they were put through
>demonstrates how far they were willing to go to bring about the
>downfall of an oppressive Empire, a display of valour equal to and
>perhaps (in some cases) more than that shown by the American troops
>when the latter nation was fighting for it's independence.
>
Your inconsistencies are showing.  While Gandhi quite rightly supported
non-violence, he also was willing to resist with illegal acts.  He often
engaged in peaceful but illegal marches.  It was also illegal for him to
encourage Indians to produce their own salt without paying the required
British taxes.  In a previous message you referred to the section of the
Indian Penal Code which criminalized homosexual behaviour.  Certainly
two loving people who set out to violate that unjust law are well within
the nonviolent principles that were preached by Gandhi.

Ec


body:
Yes, it is relevant to the original issue. Britain had racist reasons
for helping Poland whilst ignoring the plight of Abyssinia which
proves my point that countries do not help each other out without
having hidden agendas or atleast that they do not do so with genuine
fraternal compassion. America has an ulterior motive for wanting to
help would-be dissidents from China circumvent this firewall. So,
having said that I do not think Wikipedia should go by what the VoA or
other American agencies say/do-again it is mainly the U.S which seems
to be bothered to a great extent by this issue. Do you see the
relevance "Angrezi saheb"?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Google indexes quickly!

body:
Hi all,
Here's a story:
1. I noticed that the Georgia article had been updated to include a
link to "Australian pianist" [[Georgia Ollier]].
2. At this latter link, there are templates asking for sources etc.
3. I google the name...the number one hit is the Georgia disambiguation page.
4. Check the history on the disambig page - that addition was made all
of *three hours* previously.

That's impressive - you add a link to a disambig page, and less than 3
hours later you're the number one hit on Google.

What's the lesson here?

Steve


from_name: Mathias Schindler

subject: [WikiEN-l] Google indexes quickly!

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

> That's impressive - you add a link to a disambig page, and less than 3
> hours later you're the number one hit on Google.
>
> What's the lesson here?

Version 1: Luck.

Version 2: Google Sitemaps support for Mediawiki on Wikipedia.org is
working fine.

Version 3: Brion has launched a secret google agreement during his visit
in Mountain View.

Mathias


from_name: Joe Anderson

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Should Wikipedia make it clear to users that it is
	not censored for minors?

body:
One idea, as I've suggested before, would be to make a special version which
is censored for minors (with various articles blocked). This version, also,
may not be editable. This would make it more school friendly, as many have a
ban on outside communication (editing surely is a form of communication.)

On 5/14/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Doing this would be common sense. But then, IMHO, so would labelling
> individual pages that actually contained such content.
>
> Steve
>
> On 5/14/06, Prasad J <prasad59 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Wikipedia has followed a policy whereby it's content is not censored
> > for children. Having said that would it be useful to put a
> > warning/advisory on the website to make it clear to users that though
> > it is legal for them to enter the site, they should be aware that
> > Wikipedia's content is not censored for minors and the latter may come
> > across some sexual or other adult material so it is advisable for them
> > to be careful what they view? As Wikipedia's popularity increases, so
> > do the njmber of kids who access it-mainly for homework help. As a
> > result the chances of young users coming across such material are high
> > so perhaps a warning like this will be for the best? Also there may
> > also be some adults who for various reasons would prefer not  to view
> > such content.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Joe Anderson

[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Google indexes quickly!

body:
Rob Church wrote:
> This would require them to start ignoring meta tags containing
> instructions to robots, since recent changes (and other special pages)
> have "noindex,nofollow" set.

Don't we provide feeds via OAI.PMH to interested third parties?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Archives_Initiative_Protocol_for_Metadata_Harvesting

The "obvious-el-cheapo" way to get real-time update information would be
to go to #en.wikipedia on irc.wikimedia.org.


body:
Doing this would be common sense. But then, IMHO, so would labelling
individual pages that actually contained such content.

Steve

On 5/14/06, Prasad J <prasad59 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Wikipedia has followed a policy whereby it's content is not censored
> for children. Having said that would it be useful to put a
> warning/advisory on the website to make it clear to users that though
> it is legal for them to enter the site, they should be aware that
> Wikipedia's content is not censored for minors and the latter may come
> across some sexual or other adult material so it is advisable for them
> to be careful what they view? As Wikipedia's popularity increases, so
> do the njmber of kids who access it-mainly for homework help. As a
> result the chances of young users coming across such material are high
> so perhaps a warning like this will be for the best? Also there may
> also be some adults who for various reasons would prefer not  to view
> such content.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Google indexes quickly!

body:
On 5/14/06, Mathias Schindler <neubau at presroi.de> wrote:
> > What's the lesson here?
>
> Version 1: Luck.
>
> Version 2: Google Sitemaps support for Mediawiki on Wikipedia.org is
> working fine.
>
> Version 3: Brion has launched a secret google agreement during his visit
> in Mountain View.

Heh, ok, but by "what's the lesson", I mean, in what way, if any,
should Wikipedia consider changing its policies considering there is
now such a big payoff for people adding vanity information.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Discuss Blocked

body:
On 13/05/06, Matthew Moyle <mlmoyle at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I have been blocked by "Can't sleep, clown will eat me" for "repeated
> vandalism for several days". When I asked why(I don't believe I didn't
> anything to briech Wikipedia code), he gave no response. When I checked how
> long I would be blocked for I noticed "Can't sleep, clown will eat me" has
> blocked many many users for the same accusation, I believe  "Can't sleep,
> clown will eat me" has been blocking people as a joke. I am also blocked
> from editing my own user page.

Ack. CSCWEM blocked this IP for vandalism as stated above. Checking
the contributions, I see a mixture of good and bad edits, and checking
the talk page, I confirm the suspicion that this is a proxy. In fact,
it's a massive proxy serving a lot of the TNG customers in the
Brisbane area.

I've advised the user that 99 hour blocks on major proxies are not
options when dealing with vandalism and asked him to remove it as soon
as possible.

Rob Church


body:
Who's POV is it as if a article should be made a GA?

On 5/14/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Steve Bennett stated for the record:
>
> > Doing this would be common sense. But then, IMHO, so would labelling
> > individual pages that actually contained such content.
> >
> > Steve
>
> And exactly whose POINT OF VIEW would decide which pages those were?
>
> - --
> Sean Barrett     | Careful. We don't want to
> sean at epoptic.com | learn from this. --Calvin
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFEZ1Y6MAt1wyd9d+URAkKgAJ9Gjx5e2lLTC2cfRSV4PPa3IBDQXACcDjW+
> XY8Xz9vP1MFZCD3WtJj6qD0=
> =Rxyu
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Joe Anderson

[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.


body:
On 5/14/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> It should be noted that Erik posted his own thoughts on his own website
> as a private person.  The Foundation officially neither encourages nor
> discourages people from doing what they need to do to get around the
> Chinese firewall.

Is the Foundation making a statement on the copying of Wikipedia's
material (presumably in breach of the GFDL) by Baidupedia? Or did I
miss it already?

Steve


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

body:
On a related note, [[User:Bhadani]] has been agitating to enforce his
own interpretation of the laws of India, supposedly banning certain
separatist political statements, against [[User:Anwar saadat]].  He
seems to be convinced the Indian government will ban Wikipedia if it
does not act to suppress such statements if the people making them
might possibly be Indian citizens, and he is prepared to take
vigilante action to enforce this view of the law by deleting things
from user pages of others.

What *is* it about people lately thinking that Wikipedia, and its
editors, need to be law enforcement officials with regard to whatever
oppressively anti-free-speech laws exist in different countries?

--
== 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/


body:
Helping people circumvent the Chinese firewall is tantamount to
abetting a crime-and thereby unethical, unless a competent
international body (like the U.N) officially makes a statement to the
effect that China is a fascist state where citizens are brutally
oppressed by the Government and denied any human right whatsoever. If
a competent body were to make such an assessment of the situation in
China, then by helping people in that country to evade the firewall,
the Wikimedia foundation (since the persons involved are, apparently,
Wikimedians-whose primary goal is to make Wikipedia available to
Chinese users) would indeed be serving the cause of freedom, liberty
etc. However since no international body has officially deemed the
situation in China to be as bad as that in N.Korea or some such place,
the abetting of such a crime cannot be justified. Secondly, the fact
that (as Anthony said) the U.S government is likely to give grants to
those who help bring down the firewall itself proves that America
wants the firewall brought down so that it (the U.S) may achieve it's
geo-political objectives in China. In that sense aiding criminals (as
indeed those who violate Chinese law are) will be unethical-even if
those criminals (to us) seem to have reasonable intentions. And going
by (only) the U.S assessment of China is unfair-there is an
international machinery in place to pass judgement on human rights
violations in various countries. Now for the Wikimedia Foundation or
those who are acting on it's behalf (even though they may deny doing
so) would be highly unethical. Now as for the U.S Government
supporting you guys, please consider which is more important to the
American Government- the rights of the Chinese people to access a
website or diplomatic relations with China.

As for Dan: If a teenager who "exercises his right to free speech" is
shot, yes the regime in that country is a fascist one. However if a
teenager breaks the law of his country, willingly (assuming this law
is not a violation of any Human Rights) he can be punished as his
country deems fit. In this case the firewall-law does not seem to be
violating any human rights-if it is then the UNHRC would've certainly
made an issue of it. So, if a Chinese citizen violates this law he
will probably be tried for treason-a crime punishable by death in
almost every country which still allows capital punishment. Let me
illustrate with an example-in India homosexuality is an offence
punishable by incarceration. Does this mean that any gay person who is
jailed in India is being deprived of his fundamental rights? No.
Because no competent body has claimed that Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code is a violation of International Human Rights laws. The case
with China is the same. Unless some international organization
declares officialy that the Chinese firewall is a serious violation of
human rights we cannot presume that we are doing the ight thing by
"upholding the rights of the (what we call) oppressed Chinese people".


body:
On 5/14/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
> > Doing this would be common sense. But then, IMHO, so would labelling
> > individual pages that actually contained such content.
> >
> > Steve
>
> And exactly whose POINT OF VIEW would decide which pages those were?

Calm down, please, that makes 4 angry messages in a row you've sent.

At the risk of launching this topic again, shall I reiterate that no
one who wanted to see the images/articles (or, more precisely, no one
who wanted to see tham and had full control over their internet
access) would be prevented from seeing them. Which precise articles
were labelled in which way would then be an issue comparable with
which articles are labelled {{NPOV}} or {{verify}}.

Steve


body:
Why, because some people are raising arguements against it, in a
sensible, decent manner? As far as I can see, neither I nor anyone
else has used profanities etc. which could be seen as reaons to
moderate this thread. Nontheless go ahead if that is what you deem
right.


body:
For the record I am against this sort of censorship but I am also
against helping people circumvent it in an unethical manner.


body:
This is a reply to the last e-mail sent by charles matthews:
As I said, go ahead with what you deem correct.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Should Wikipedia make it clear to users that it is not
	censored for minors?

body:
Wikipedia has followed a policy whereby it's content is not censored
for children. Having said that would it be useful to put a
warning/advisory on the website to make it clear to users that though
it is legal for them to enter the site, they should be aware that
Wikipedia's content is not censored for minors and the latter may come
across some sexual or other adult material so it is advisable for them
to be careful what they view? As Wikipedia's popularity increases, so
do the njmber of kids who access it-mainly for homework help. As a
result the chances of young users coming across such material are high
so perhaps a warning like this will be for the best? Also there may
also be some adults who for various reasons would prefer not  to view
such content.


from_name: Peter Ansell

subject: [WikiEN-l] What. The. Fuck??!?

body:
On 5/12/06, Russell Blackford <russellblackford at bigpond.com> wrote:
> Independently of the stunt being discussed here, a group of us have chanced
> our collective arm that there is now enough consensus, on the talk page and
> elsewhere, to alter the wording of T1. T1 is now elaborated and clarified in
> a way that expressly allows for speedy deletion of such userboxes. I hope
> that the wording will stick but that admins will show some sensitivity, e.g.
> transcluding (or whatever the hell that word is) boxes before zapping them.
>
> Under the new wording - if it does stick - the deletion of the User:
> Christian template is supportable, but I'm really quite dismayed by the
> antics involving it overnight my time. Some people on this list might want
> to see the comments being expressed in the deletion review, and to make
> comments of their own about what has been done, both by the group involved
> with this template and by those of us who thought T1 needed to be changed.
>
> Russell
>

There are ways to do things without changing the wording on a Speedy.
If the debate based consensus on a topic is not clear how do you
justify making up an objective criteria that will be accepted by
editors who see the large amount of power in a criterium that only has
to be agreed upon by a single admin in the end, no questions asked.
(unless someone puts it to DRVU, which they did in this case)

Peter


list: foundation-l

from_name: Michael Bimmler

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia CH formally established

body:
Hello,
This (May 14th) afternoon, Wikimedia CH has been officially
established at a meeting with 12 people present at Olten. The legally
binding record of the Founding Assembly will follow but I'll already
enclose some information:

The board of Wikimedia CH:

As president:

Ilario Valdelli (president, representative of Ticino)

As members:

Fr?d?ric Schutz (representative of Romandie)
Robin Schwab
Christian Seidl
Rupert Thurner
J?rg Wolf
Michael Bimmler (secretary/members affairs)

The board will formally distribute the ressorts at it's first meeting.

As auditors (not part of the board):
J?rg Studer
Patrick Kenel

Ad hoc elected Press speaker
For german-speaking part of Switzerland: Nando St?cklin
For french-speaking part of Switzerland (Romandie): Fr?d?ric Sch?tz
For italian-speaking part of Switzerland: Ilario Valdelli

Official contact adress:
Wikimedia CH
8008 Z?rich
info at wikimedia dot ch
www.wikimedia.ch

A press release will be distributed tomorrow.

Wikimedia CH's first event will be Swiss Wikipedia Day 2006 in Z?rich
(ETH Z?rich), more information is to follow.

--
Regards
Michael Bimmler

Wikimedia CH - Verein zur F?rderung Freien Wissens
Wikimedia CH - Association for the advancement of free knowledge
www.wikimedia.ch


list: wikimedia-l


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikimedia CH formally established

body:
(cross-posted to several other lists, was sent out in 2 separate mails)
Hello,
This (May 14th) afternoon, Wikimedia CH has been officially
established at a meeting with 12 people present at Olten. The legally
binding record of the Founding Assembly will follow but I'll already
enclose some information:

The board of Wikimedia CH:

As president:

Ilario Valdelli (president, representative of Ticino)

As members:

Fr?d?ric Schutz (representative of Romandie)
Robin Schwab
Christian Seidl
Rupert Thurner
J?rg Wolf
Michael Bimmler (secretary/members affairs)

The board will formally distribute the ressorts at it's first meeting.

As auditors (not part of the board):
J?rg Studer
Patrick Kenel

Ad hoc elected Press speaker
For german-speaking part of Switzerland: Nando St?cklin
For french-speaking part of Switzerland (Romandie): Fr?d?ric Sch?tz
For italian-speaking part of Switzerland: Ilario Valdelli

Official contact adress:
Wikimedia CH
8008 Z?rich
info at wikimedia dot ch
www.wikimedia.ch

A press release will be distributed tomorrow.

Wikimedia CH's first event will be Swiss Wikipedia Day 2006 in Z?rich
(ETH Z?rich), more information is to follow.

--
Regards
Michael Bimmler

Wikimedia CH - Verein zur F?rderung Freien Wissens
Wikimedia CH - Association for the advancement of free knowledge
www.wikimedia.ch

--
Regards
Michael Bimmler

Wikimedia CH - Verein zur F?rderung Freien Wissens
Wikimedia CH - Association for the advancement of free knowledge
www.wikimedia.ch


from_name: Stefan Kühn

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Coordinates in Wikipedia

body:
Hello,

I produce a new KMZ-File for Google Earth with 43347 coordinates
from the English Wikipedia.
http://www.webkuehn.de/hobbys/wikipedia/geokoordinaten/index.htm

The biggest problem to use the geodata from our databank is the big
number of different templates (68 !!!). In the German Wikipedia we have
only three templates (and two other) but we working on a
One-Template-System. Then we have only one template but different
outputs. This is easier to understand and I hope better to use.

Some templates we don?t use very often in the English Wikipedia.
"Templates:Coor dm NE" only in 19 articles. So we can change this and
delete.

Another big problem is the missing of the attributes "region" and
"type". With this simple attributes we can make really better
geoinformation. Only 15% of the coordinates had the attribute "type" and
9% the attribute "region". If you want see how useful this attribute
are, then try the German KMZ-File. There we have 31456 coordinates and
98% with "type" and 94% with "region".

I hope you all help to fill attributes in the existing coordinates.

More infos:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates

Thank you for your attention.
Stefan K?hn
Germany

P.S. For my Ph.D. thesis I have an On-line questionnaire to orientation
and navigation aids. Please help me and fill the form (duration: max. 5
minutes)!
http://www.kartographie.uni-trier.de/befragung.htm

--
Stefan K?hn
http://www.webkuehn.de


body:
The U.S was not the only country to gain Independence through war-most
nations did choose that method. The point is that the Indian leaders
overthrew the British Crown solely through protests and passive
resistance with a minimum of bloodshed (except for the few thousand
freedom-fighters the English murdered-or as was the case at
Jallianwallah Bagh-massacred). But considering that 25% of the world's
population is concentrated in the Indian subcontinent, the human toll
would have been far higher if a violent struggle had been waged. The
path of agressive resistance / rebellion is, in most cases, less
effective than a reasonable, calm approach. The destination in both
cases is the same, the journey is however much different. Perhaps a
compromise can be worked out with the Chinese government that would be
acceptable to all the concerned parties. Perhaps, as Mr.Wales
suggested the government could agree to filter out certain pages
whilst leaving the others uncensored. That, in my opinion would be a
much more reasonable solution than for the "resistance" to carry out
subversive activities. As a side-note, I ask you which of the two is
more courageous and indicative of a firmer desire to topple the
government-1) To fight back and deal your opponent blow for blow or 2)
To patiently bear every everything he hits you with till a point comes
where he himself realises the futility of his trying to beat you into
submission and concedes defeat (which, essentially was what Britain
realised with regard to India after decades of baton-charges,machine
gun firings,deportations and executions, to name a few).

PS-I suggest Sean that you rent a DVD of the Richard Attenborough
movie "Gandhi". You will find that very often a soft-spoken, elderly
"half-naked fakir" has more courage and willpower than the most
decorated military commander. You will also learn that though the
Indian freedom-fighters may not have retaliated even in the face of
brutal British suppression, the fact that they stood by their beliefs
inspite of the sheer physical and mental agony they were put through
demonstrates how far they were willing to go to bring about the
downfall of an oppressive Empire, a display of valour equal to and
perhaps (in some cases) more than that shown by the American troops
when the latter nation was fighting for it's independence.


from_name: valdelli at bluemail.ch

body:
Yes, Wikimedia CH is formally established.

I'm happy and I'm also curious to check its evolution. Wikimedia CH, at moment,
is the only multi-linguistic Wikimedia (I hope don't make a mistake) and
I would follow its evolution and to verify if this difference could be a
"plus" and not a division (I hope passionately).

Wikipedia is based, following its nature, on division by languages. Surely
there are users who offer their contributes to different wikipedias, but
in any case any wikipedia is a different community with different rules,
different goals, different outlook. Wikimedia CH is trying to harmonize its
three culture (or four or five including alemmanisch and rumantsch), this
is a challenge. In the first meeting we used four languages to communicate
(german, english, french and italian), the Olten's "BahnhofBuffet" seemed
to be the "BabelBuffet", but the most important thing is that there was a
communication.

I hope for the future :) ...in any case we started pursuing this aim having
at least a member for each three main languages in the board.

Best Regards

Ilario Valdelli
http://www.wikimedia.ch

>-- Messaggio originale --
>Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 21:13:11 +0200
>From: "Michael Bimmler" <mbimmler at gmail.com>
>To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>,
>	"Chapters committee list" <chaptercommittee-l at wikimedia.org>,
>	"Mailing list for Wikimedia CH" <wikimediach-l at wikipedia.org>,
>	"wikimediach-l-owner at wikipedia.org" <wikimediach-l-owner at wikipedia.org>,
>	board at wikimedia.org,
>	"Mailingliste der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia" <wikide-l at wikipedia.org>,
>	"Mailing list per Wikipedia in italiano" <wikiit-l at wikipedia.org>,
>	"Liste de diffusion de la Wikip?dia francophone" <wikifr-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia CH formally established
>Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>
>
>Hello,
>This (May 14th) afternoon, Wikimedia CH has been officially
>established at a meeting with 12 people present at Olten. The legally
>binding record of the Founding Assembly will follow but I'll already
>enclose some information:
>
>The board of Wikimedia CH:
>
>As president:
>
>Ilario Valdelli (president, representative of Ticino)
>
>As members:
>
>Fr?d?ric Schutz (representative of Romandie)
>Robin Schwab
>Christian Seidl
>Rupert Thurner
>J?rg Wolf
>Michael Bimmler (secretary/members affairs)
>
>The board will formally distribute the ressorts at it's first meeting.
>
>As auditors (not part of the board):
>J?rg Studer
>Patrick Kenel
>
>Ad hoc elected Press speaker
>For german-speaking part of Switzerland: Nando St?cklin
>For french-speaking part of Switzerland (Romandie): Fr?d?ric Sch?tz
>For italian-speaking part of Switzerland: Ilario Valdelli
>
>Official contact adress:
>Wikimedia CH
>8008 Z?rich
>info at wikimedia dot ch
>www.wikimedia.ch
>
>A press release will be distributed tomorrow.
>
>Wikimedia CH's first event will be Swiss Wikipedia Day 2006 in Z?rich
>(ETH Z?rich), more information is to follow.
>
>--
>Regards
>Michael Bimmler
>
>Wikimedia CH - Verein zur F?rderung Freien Wissens
>Wikimedia CH - Association for the advancement of free knowledge
>www.wikimedia.ch
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Google indexes quickly!

body:
On May 14, 2006, at 1:45 PM, Keith Old wrote:

>>> Heh, ok, but by "what's the lesson", I mean, in what way, if any,
>>> should Wikipedia consider changing its policies considering there is
>>> now such a big payoff for people adding vanity information.
>>
>> *shrug* Just need to enforce CSD more stringently, that's all.
>
> Vanity isn't a valid grounds for deletion at any level let alone
> speedy
> deletion.

Vanity isn't, but non-notable biography is, as is patent nonsense. If
John Q. Highschoolstudent writes a vanity page, it'll say (in general
terms) one of the following:

1. John Q. Highschoolstudent is on the track team and plays a mean
game of Halo.
2. John Q. Highschoolstudent won the NBA Slam Dunk Competition in 2006.

1 is non-notable bio, 2 is patent nonsense. Those two CSD's alone are
the vanity fork--almost all vanity articles will fall within at least
one of tehm.

> The criteria for speedy deletion limit the capacity of admins to
> unilaterally delete articles without proper process which in my
> view is a
> good thing. As someone who looks at speedy deletion articles on a
> daily
> basis, the criteria for speedy deletion are not as well understood
> by many
> people who nominate articles.

Likewise, as someone with much speedy deletion experience, if it
wasn't for the loose construction of CSD used by admins on a daily
basis, our deletion processes would be even more backlogged than they
are now.

> In general, our policies are strong enough to keep out articles
> without
> merit once we become aware of them.

That was my point as well.

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


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
On 5/14/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:

> Our official position is that the block is in error, that there is
> nothing about Wikipedia in general which fits into the category of
> things that are normally blocked, and we hope that the block will
> eventually be lifted when we are able to reach the right decision makers
> to explain the situation to them.

I hope so, too, though it seems even less likely now that local
corporate interests (Baidu.com) are involved as well. There are at
least three things we can also do which, I hope, are relatively
uncontroversial.

a)

There are NPOV pages on Wikipedia and Wikibooks about Internet
censorship and the "Great Firewall" in particular:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_mainland_China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocking_of_Wikipedia_in_mainland_China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_%28anonymity_network%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advice_to_Tor_users_in_China
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Transwiki:Bypassing_the_Great_Firewall_of_China

Improving this information and keeping it up to date almost certainly
guarantees its (read-only) availability due to its free content
nature, at least against origin-based filters.

b)

Improving our mechanisms of authentication and authorization will, as
a side-effect, allow any user of Tor or similar anonymization tools to
go through a process of creating a trusted account (which might be
upgraded in several steps) for editing. This will be especially
relevant when we have single login, and moreover, when we start
federating our authentication system with other websites. The process
could consist of a new user first having to chat with a human to get
permanent editable access, or having to go through a captcha-like
process. The user would be pseudonymous, and the pseudonymous identity
would be protected by whatever tool they use.

This is by no means limited to China or even to the problem of
censorship. Selective authorization of trusted users within a
non-trusted group is equally applicable, for instance, to the problem
of vandalism from school IPs.

c)

If the new Chinese fork by Baidu.com changes GFDL content, whether
they like it or not, we are legally allowed to incorporate their
improvements into the Chinese Wikipedia (provided that Baidu or the
contributors have the exclusive rights to the content in the first
place).  This situation is not entirely dissimilar to the Spanish
Wikipedia fork "Enciclopedia Libre" which, for some time, was quite
successful. At the time, I was told that Spanish Wikipedians were
actively copying over improvements. I hope the same will happen on
zh.wikipedia.org.

-

Now, if we do all this, there's one additional little step we could
take. As noted above, the fact that Wikipedia is free content itself
helps to guarantee the availability of the text. So, while China's
Wikipedia block is bad, I think in the long run it primarily hurts
editors, not readers, who will hopefully find mirrors of the content.
Now imagine most mirror copies of Wikipedia content carried a notice
like this (in the applicable language):

"The Wikipedia article ''Galileo Galilei'' is licensed under the [[GNU
Free Documentation License]] (see [[history]]). The [[latest, openly
editable version]] of the article is located on Wikipedia. If you
cannot access or edit Wikipedia, please see the [[Wikimedia Content
Access Guidelines]]." [*]

This last link would point to a locally hosted copy of a file which
explains various issues, including prominent information about
accessing Wikipedia through any kind of filter, and about setting up a
trusted account for editing as described under b) above.

Getting these guidelines included by mirrors could, perhaps, be
accomplished by attaching a footer like this to our database and HTML
dumps.  It would be clear that these guidelines exist not for
political reasons, but as a matter of providing and protecting access
to knowledge. It seems to me that giving a child in Africa a free
encyclopedia or textbook is, inherently, based on the same motivation
as giving a child in the PRC access to our knowledge and learning
resources, to wit:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home
"Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to
the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."

To me, this easily translates to: "We don't care who you are or where
you live. If you cannot read or edit Wikipedia, we will help you." Far
from an all-out campaign against censorship (which I support
separately, but not necessarily wtihin Wikimedia), it would be a small
step to try to better inform those who cannot otherwise contribute,
and who are aware of the risks.

Erik

[*] Anthony, you don't need to tell me about the literal requirements
of the GFDL. :-)


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-05-15

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

Running test Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test Magic Word: {{NUMBEROFFILES}}... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test Language converter: output gets cut off unexpectedly (bug 5757)... FAILED!
Running test HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, closed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, closed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!

Passed 304 of 314 tests (96.82%) FAILED!


body:
On 5/14/06, Prasad J <prasad59 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Wikipedia has followed a policy whereby it's content is not censored
> for children. Having said that would it be useful to put a
> warning/advisory on the website to make it clear to users that though
> it is legal for them to enter the site, they should be aware that
> Wikipedia's content is not censored for minors

We could combine it with our general disclaimer.

"WARNING: Wikipedia may or may not describe reality as it actually is.
It may or may not include accurate or inaccurate information which may
or may not offend you. If you search for an article about a sexual
topic such as ''autofellatio'', it may include information about the
sexual topic in question. Then again, it may not. Conversely, if you
search for information about ''Drosophila melanogaster'', the article
may not include any actual information about ''Drosophila
melanogaster'' at all but, in fact, a 14-year-old's opinion about the
sexual orientation of one of his friends or classmates. The article
may or may not be illustrated in either case. You may or may not trust
Wikipedia, but if you do so blindly, please [[contact us]] for
information about affordable beachside properties."

Erik


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

references:
<e42kmd$gvg$1@sea.gmane.org> <4464DA25.1000409@gmail.com>
	<e42m7p$n6n$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<2ur9621hthogurng719u6feqismlit9oun@4ax.com>
	<e43642$6jp$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<1d9b62hmhs4nijbdbjaoitoocdmkrrmiuo@4ax.com>
	<e44bmb$nct$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<6rjb62tg22oicfu3tqnlnkmps8bl6fsre9@4ax.com>
	<a1be7e0e0605141338r5453997awf35a46914800f5f6@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On Mon, 15 May 2006 06:38:39 +1000, you wrote:

>What exactly is it about the transclusion that disrupts wikipedia? I
>still don't understand what the significant difference between using
>what links here on templates and using what links here on articles
>which people are free to wikilink to from their user pages, after all,
>they are likely to state their opinion next to the link anyway.

Two points: first, transclusion takes up additional server resources,
which should be avoided unless an encyclopaedic purpose is served
(Babel being the obvious example); second, having them in template
space implies a degree of "official" sanction which is absent in many
cases.

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


body:
On 5/14/06, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> This (May 14th) afternoon, Wikimedia CH has been officially
> established at a meeting with 12 people present at Olten.

Congratulations! This will help to emphasize that chapters are about
local representation and not responsible for the content of a
Wikipedia in a particular language. And it's great to see that
http://www.wikimedia.ch/ has an RSS feed, it would be nice to have
that for all chapters.

Now where is
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_%C3%96sterreich ? :-)

Erik


subject: [Wikitech-l] nofollow in user: space

body:
On 5/15/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/14/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2) Google thinks we should enable it.
>
> Do you have a link? That would be interesting...

Brion said he was told as much by google in his coversations with them
in the thread I linked in my prior post.


from_name: geni

body:
On 5/14/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> What *is* it about people lately thinking that Wikipedia, and its
> editors, need to be law enforcement officials with regard to whatever
> oppressively anti-free-speech laws exist in different countries?

Critical mass. In the past we didn't have people who understood
various local anti freedom of speach laws but didn't understand why
they did not apply in any real way to wikipedia. Also no one of
significance had blocked us for very long.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

references:
<e42kmd$gvg$1@sea.gmane.org> <4464DA25.1000409@gmail.com>
	<e42m7p$n6n$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<2ur9621hthogurng719u6feqismlit9oun@4ax.com>
	<e43642$6jp$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<1d9b62hmhs4nijbdbjaoitoocdmkrrmiuo@4ax.com>
	<e44bmb$nct$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<6rjb62tg22oicfu3tqnlnkmps8bl6fsre9@4ax.com>
	<a1be7e0e0605141338r5453997awf35a46914800f5f6@mail.gmail.com>
	<q9ff62h80p1ao9pvgb8f2p5iqfcppbia3g@4ax.com>

body:
On 5/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> second, having them in template
> space implies a degree of "official" sanction which is absent in many
> cases.
>
> Guy (JzG)

How? Loads of stuff in most namespaces that are not "officialy" sanctioned.

--
geni


list: textbook-l

from_name: Kernigh

subject: [Textbook-l] Block against

body:
[[en:User:Zephram Stark]] was recently blocked:

* 13:18, 8 May 2006 Jimbo Wales blocked "Zephram Stark (contribs)" with an
expiry time of infinite (trolling, banned user on en.wikipedia)

I am not aware of the situation on en.wikipedia, though I do know that this
user is blocked on commons.wikimedia, and has used sockpuppets to evade the
block. However, this user has not been vandalising en.wikibooks, and the
only thing that I could find that resembles "trolling" are a few
allegations about sockpuppets, not anything which disrupted en.wikibooks.

It appears that the only reason for this block concerns trouble on
en.wikipedia, and of such trouble I have no knowledge. (Maybe someone
could describe to me what happened?)

I think that this user should be unblocked immediately or the block be
shortened to 1 week or less. What does everyone think?
-- [[en:User:Kernigh]]
   http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Kernigh


body:
On 5/14/06, Prasad J <prasad59 at gmail.com> wrote:

> As for Dan: If a teenager who "exercises his right to free speech" is
> shot, yes the regime in that country is a fascist one. However if a
> teenager breaks the law of his country, willingly (assuming this law
> is not a violation of any Human Rights) he can be punished as his
> country deems fit. In this case the firewall-law does not seem to be
> violating any human rights-if it is then the UNHRC would've certainly
> made an issue of it.

*Article 19. Universal declaration of human rights
*

   Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this
   right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek,
   receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of
   frontiers

'nough said.

Garion


from_name: Robert Scott Horning

subject: [Textbook-l] Block against

body:
Kernigh wrote:

>[[en:User:Zephram Stark]] was recently blocked:
>
>* 13:18, 8 May 2006 Jimbo Wales blocked "Zephram Stark (contribs)" with an
>expiry time of infinite (trolling, banned user on en.wikipedia)
>
>I am not aware of the situation on en.wikipedia, though I do know that this
>user is blocked on commons.wikimedia, and has used sockpuppets to evade the
>block. However, this user has not been vandalising en.wikibooks, and the
>only thing that I could find that resembles "trolling" are a few
>allegations about sockpuppets, not anything which disrupted en.wikibooks.
>
>It appears that the only reason for this block concerns trouble on
>en.wikipedia, and of such trouble I have no knowledge. (Maybe someone
>could describe to me what happened?)
>
>I think that this user should be unblocked immediately or the block be
>shortened to 1 week or less. What does everyone think?
>-- [[en:User:Kernigh]]
>   http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Kernigh
>
>
I have dealt with this issue in the past, so far as there has been a
very significant community of people with visseral hatred of this
particular user.  I don't understand completely what the justifications
have been, but yes, on en.wikibooks he has been a fairly quiet user and
hasn't really been too much of a problem.  The largest "problem" he
created was with the Social Postulutes Wikibook and a few other books of
a similar vein.  That these books could be considered original research,
perhaps, but that is something that can and was dealt with on the VfD pages.

I think these actions are encouraging the creation of a troll rather
than trying to deal with people with very different life philosophies.
 I also see this as part of wheel warring that is going on regarding
this user's actions on Wikipedia, but unfortunately spilling over into
Wikibooks.  I have instead tried to be very cordial and try to
discourage this user from doing the supposedly disruptive activities on
Wikibooks using communications as a tool, rather than trying to invoke
administrative tools.

Wikibooks has become a very hostile environment to work in, and
unfortunately I think it has aquired some critical mass of deletionists
lately whose opinions are changing the nature of Wikibooks that was one
of the major attractions to the project in the past.  Decisions used to
be much more reasoned and weren't made in such a hurry, and all I can
hope is that this current wave of culling is going to burn out and that
Wikibooks will eventually return to the way it was in terms of being
much more rational in its decisions than Wikipedia has been.  I also
agree with you Kernigh that if a user is to be banned on a project like
Wikibooks, they should be banned because of their actions on that
particular project, and not because of some universal action and policy
that was decided on another project, including Wikipedia.  Particularly
because all I can get is very biased and POV information from Wikipedia
of the whole issue anyway.

--
Robert Scott Horning


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] How to be GFDL compliant

body:
On 5/15/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> > On 5/12/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/12/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> >>> If they are and they aren't citing authors, aren't they in breach of the
> >>> GFDL.  And if that's the case, can we sue?  Please?
> >> The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't hold the copyrights over Wikimedia
> >> content, it is merely a user that must follow the terms of the GFDL
> >> like any mirror or fork. Wikimedia could, however, provide financial
> >> or legal assistance to the authors whose copyright is infringed in a
> >> lawsuit.
> >>
> > That would be fairly hypocritical, though, since Wikimedia itself
> > doesn't even follow the GFDL.
> >
>
> *hauls out text of the GFDL*
>
> Right. Section 6: Collection of Documents:
>
In order to be in compliance with the GFDL you need to be in
compliance with the whole thing, not just one section.

Anthony

> The articles themselves are licensed under the GFDL, and Wikipedia is a
> collection of articles - so the individual copies are replaced by a
> single copy *included in the collection*. IANAL but it's good enough for
> me, /and most other contributors/. What's *not* good enough is mirroring
> us without even *attempting* GFDL compliance, at least to the same
> extent that Wikipedia itself complies with the GFDL.
>
And how would you suggest they do that?

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 5/13/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/12/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> > What on Earth is supposed to be
> > harmful about users proclaiming their view on religious or controversial
> > topics?
>
> As far as I can see, CSD T1 only prohibits me from creating
> [[Template:User thinks religion is an irrational construction of the
> mind]], not from putting the same information on my user page without
> a template (inside a colored box or without one). It seems more like a
> structural measure than a content-related policy. From that point of
> view, I find it hard to get very excited about this change. We didn't
> even have templates until Tim added the feature to MediaWiki.

Its not even the content that they are really pushing against, it is
the simple votestacking issue. Its not like people would not otherwise
link to their controversial topic and people could use what links here
from the article page anyway. Thats just the second most easy method
of vote-stacking, there have to be others.

> Templates are meant for the encyclopedia and its processes. When you
> allow highly individual/personal content in the template space, you
> effectively encourage userpage policy creeping into the template
> namespace, i.e. claims of content ownership and lack of NPOV. As for
> the "vote-stacking" and grouping, that issue has two sides, a good one
> and a bad one, but I tend to agree that on highly divisive issues, the
> disadvantages tend to prevail.
>
> Erik

The purposes of templates in my view are not just for the
encyclopedia. I haven't seen a decree stating that, and userboxes have
been accepted as a way of life. How else would you describe the
existence of DRVU, if they hadn't been accepted outright in concept? I
think that the possibly keeping categories out of userboxes is the
furthest that I would go to reduce divisive and inflammatory factors.
For example, if something goes back for a second "vote", there are
many people who are prepared to take the last vote and contact
everyone who voted the same as them in order to tell them about the
second vote, how exactly do you keep that from happening by taking
away userboxes?

Peter


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

references:
<e42kmd$gvg$1@sea.gmane.org> <4464DA25.1000409@gmail.com>
	<e42m7p$n6n$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<2ur9621hthogurng719u6feqismlit9oun@4ax.com>
	<e43642$6jp$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<1d9b62hmhs4nijbdbjaoitoocdmkrrmiuo@4ax.com>
	<e44bmb$nct$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<6rjb62tg22oicfu3tqnlnkmps8bl6fsre9@4ax.com>

body:
On 5/13/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> Look back a short way on the list and in the arbitration queue and so
> on.  Trust me, the debates were massively disruptive.  Massively.  And
> nobody is "forbidding" anything - only saying that it should not be
> done through transclusion from Template space.
>
> Guy (JzG)

What exactly is it about the transclusion that disrupts wikipedia? I
still don't understand what the significant difference between using
what links here on templates and using what links here on articles
which people are free to wikilink to from their user pages, after all,
they are likely to state their opinion next to the link anyway.

Peter


from_name: Keith Old

subject: [WikiEN-l] Google indexes quickly!

body:
On 5/15/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
>
> On May 14, 2006, at 8:40 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> > Heh, ok, but by "what's the lesson", I mean, in what way, if any,
> > should Wikipedia consider changing its policies considering there is
> > now such a big payoff for people adding vanity information.
>
> *shrug* Just need to enforce CSD more stringently, that's all.

Philip L. Welch
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Vanity isn't a valid grounds for deletion at any level let alone speedy
deletion. As an admin, I would look at a speedy nomination on vanity as
follows:

a) if it is a non-notable biography or otherwise appears to meet speedy
deletion criteria, delete it;

b) if it doesn't appear to meet speedy deletion criteria but doesn't appear
notable and/or verifiable, I would propose it for deletion or list it at
articles for deletion depending on how likely I think it is that people
would vote to keep it.

c) if it appears notable and verifiable, through what links here and a
Google search keep the article and improve it or flag it for improvement.

I wouldn't delete it on vanity grounds as it is not a valid grounds for
deletion. The problem with vanity articles is that they generally do not
meet notability and/or verifiability criteria. If the subjects of these
articles do meet such criteria, they should not edit the articles under
NPOV. We also need to ensure that the article is not written in such a way
that it gives an unduly negative impression of the person.

The criteria for speedy deletion limit the capacity of admins to
unilaterally delete articles without proper process which in my view is a
good thing. As someone who looks at speedy deletion articles on a daily
basis, the criteria for speedy deletion are not as well understood by many
people who nominate articles.

In general, our policies are strong enough to keep out articles without
merit once we become aware of them.

Regards

Keith Old

Keith Old

User:Capitalistroadster


subject: [WikiEN-l] GFDL lawsuits - who can sue?

body:
On 5/15/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/15/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Rob Church wrote:
> > > On 12/05/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > >>> And if that's the case, can we sue?  Please?
> > >>>
> > >> Good luck with that.
> > >
> > > The Foundation can't, because it doesn't own the copyright to the
> > > material. It's up to the copyright holder to enforce their licencing.
> > >
> >
> > Could The Foundation sue /on behalf of/ those authors whose copyright
> > has been violated?
>
> INAL but my understanding is.
> Under US law they could if given permission to do so by the copyright
> holders (the situtation is compicated in the case of minors. The
> foundation would probably need their parents/gardians permissions).
>
At the very least it would certainly be possible for anyone who can
enter into a contract to assign their copyright to the foundation.

How many people you need permission from depends if you consider
Wikipedia to be a work of joint ownership or not (the other
alternative is that each work is independently created as a derivative
of the previous).  I tend to believe it would be considered a joint
work, as it makes the application of the GFDL a lot cleaner.
Actually, I think the cleanest interpretation would be that Wikipedia
is a collection of joint works, where in some cases those works
consist of single articles and in other cases they stretch out more
widely (due to copy/paste/etc).  But I don't really buy into the
interpretation that each version of each article is independently
created under permission of the GFDL, in part because the GFDL simply
isn't being followed.

Anyway, with a joint work all joint copyright owners (anyone who has
contributed copyrighted material) has "an equal right to register and
enforce the copyright".
[http://www.techtransfer.fsu.edu/jointownership.html]

> I don't know how chinese copyright law works and international
> copyright law tends to get very complex very fast.

Especially when the company in question is working directly with the
government in question.  Hence, "good luck with that".

Anthony


subject: [Wikipedia-l] [WikiEN-l] Tearing down the Chinese Firewall

body:
I'm moving this from the English Wikipedia to wikipedia-l.  It never
really should have been on wikien in the first place.

On 5/14/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> Now, if we do all this, there's one additional little step we could
> take. As noted above, the fact that Wikipedia is free content itself
> helps to guarantee the availability of the text. So, while China's
> Wikipedia block is bad, I think in the long run it primarily hurts
> editors, not readers, who will hopefully find mirrors of the content.
> Now imagine most mirror copies of Wikipedia content carried a notice
> like this (in the applicable language):

I was thinking about this.  Now I know there are tons of mirrors of
the English Wikipedia, but what about the Chinese one?  I guess I
could just do my own study, but if someone happens to know already
that'd be easier :).

Also, I'm not sure how advanced China's text filters are.  According
to Wikipedia they only apply it to certain pages they've designated
ahead of time.  But as that technology improves even many of the
mirrored articles would still be blocked if they weren't served by
https.

So that brought me to my current working idea, which is just a vmware
player virtual machine [*] which hosts a Chinese Wikipedia mirror on
https.  So essentially all you'd have to do is download a file and
click install and you'll be helping spread Wikipedia in China.  The
actual content could be downloaded in the background using bittorrent,
so there wouldn't be any additional load on Wikipedias servers.  Hey,
if some people want to help me (it shouldn't be too hard), and we can
finish by May 26th, we can even enter it into the contest at
http://www.vmware.com/vmtn/appliances/challenge/, maybe get some extra
publicity (I doubt it'd win, but might get some sort of special
mention).

> [*] Anthony, you don't need to tell me about the literal requirements
> of the GFDL. :-)

LOL, OK, but shouldn't the [*] have gone after the part about "we are
legally allowed to incorporate their improvements into the Chinese
Wikipedia"?

[*] Erik, yes, vmware player is proprietary freeware.  You can port
the software to QEMU or some free virtualization program if you'd like
:).


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unfair block

body:
On 5/15/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> What's going on lately?  First Bhadani's near-incoherent complaints
> about "treason", and now this?
>

I think threatening to to sue us in the court of trenton new jersey
went out of fassion.

There have been tensions on the various articles involveing pakistan
and india for some time. No quite as bad as the ones for the
Greek/macidonia ones but still there.

--
geni


from_name: Prasad J

body:
The Indian Government does not have the authority to ban sites as it
pleases without taking the risk of being maligned by the opposition
parties-let us not forget that India is far more democratic than China
(another discussion about the latter is in progress) . If by
"seperatist political statements" Bhadani means that Anwaar Saadat is
campaigning for a "liberated Kashmir", then the latter (under the
Indian Constitution) has every right to do so-assuming he is an Indian
citizen. However if he begins to act overly suspicious the security
forces do reserve the right to scan his e-mails etc. to make sure he
doesn't take more....proactive....steps in the direction of his
political views.


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

references:
<e44bmb$nct$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<6rjb62tg22oicfu3tqnlnkmps8bl6fsre9@4ax.com>
	<a1be7e0e0605141338r5453997awf35a46914800f5f6@mail.gmail.com>
	<q9ff62h80p1ao9pvgb8f2p5iqfcppbia3g@4ax.com>
	<f80608430605141818v5e8cd73ck62798d88cd2b7389@mail.gmail.com>
	<vmig62thirki1qgp0pdefvrrmbvbhd8puk@4ax.com>
	<f80608430605150236h1c868f1du63f46bc589b17e3a@mail.gmail.com>
	<h0kg621g31gcmmoffj9u09hdno8ch9d1v9@4ax.com>
	<f80608430605150344i3a45e5a8x792e5edad60e27df@mail.gmail.com>
	<aipg62ph1tpq5afkhc1k8g30irl3pbq3h6@4ax.com>

body:
On 5/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 May 2006 11:44:28 +0100, you wrote:
>
> >That doens't make them official.
>
> It implies a degree of endorsement.  I don't see any problem with
> emphasising the difference between those things which are encouraged
> as helping the building of an encyclopaedia, from those which are
> tolerated  but recognised as not doing so, and in some cases actively
> impeding the process.
>
The problem is reaching agreement on which is which.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] 1-Click Answers tool finally released

body:
On 5/15/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry are we talking about AFD, admins, Jimbo, process, IAR, 1-click
> answers, [....]

Speaking of which, I see that was finally released:
http://wikipedia.answers.com/main/download_answers_wikipedia.jsp

Taking a look at one of the results, apparently Answers Corporation
claims copyright on the page, and doesn't acknowledge any of the
authors.  Go figure.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On May 15, 2006, at 8:01 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> This is all rather charming and interesting, but totally out of
> context.
>  I have exercised no "dictatorial force" and I always ask the
> community
> about everything.  In the ongoing userbox wars, I think I have been
> admirably constrained in my actions, even for me.

That's an understatement. The most potent criticism of Jimbo's
actions here is that he hasn't been decisive enough in simply
resolving the issue himself instead of waiting on the community.

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


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [Wikitech-l] nofollow in user: space

body:
On 5/14/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2) Google thinks we should enable it.

Do you have a link? That would be interesting...

Steve


body:
Ray,
You cannot compare Gandhiji's Civil Disobedience Movement (a part of
which was producing salt illegally) with the present scenarion,
because the Chinese do not plan (since that would be stupidity) to
openly admit to their Government that they are breaking this law.
Under the Civil Disobedience Movement, Gandhiji and his followers
openly broke the law, after announcing to the British that they would
be doing so . It was not done in a secretive way, which is the manner
in which the Chinese would evade the firewall. Again, if two
homosexuals in India defied the Indian Penal Code, they would not be
treated as if they were fighting for a just cause (or following
Gandhian principles)-infact they would be jailed. This is because
Indian society is still against the concept of gays.So does that mean
that the U.N can intervene? No. Because mass public opinion is against
homosexuals-although this opinion may not be all that justified. So
again, you cannot compare this issue with the one in China (where, I'm
assuming most oppose the firewall)since the majority of Indians do
support this law-even though the gays may term it a violation of their
human rights.


from_name: Elliott F. Cable

subject: [Wikitech-l] Request: linkable images

body:
Reply from me, I BELIEVE I have a O.K. solution to this that we can
all agree with.

There are already a multitude of 'tags' that  go on the image tag,
such as making it a thumb, the pixel width, an alt tag, things like
that - why not add a 'link tag'? If you supply, say,
[[Image:Chicago_icon|48px|:Chicago]] - then the image
Image:Chicago_icon would appear, liked to [[Chicago]]. To parse it,
just catch any line starting with a colon (just prefix main-namespace
links in this format with a single colon, as you do for
transclusion). Does anybody see the logic in this? And, for links of
this format, do something similar to the redirect - put a notice
where redirects go that this image pointed you *here*, go *HERE*
instead for information about this image.

Also, perhaps put the attribution in the alt-tag for images so linked
- we could make attribution a separate field on the upload screen -
that would also even help with the proposed upload-to-commons thing!

Even if not the attribution thing, I really think a link-to option
would really simplify things for users.

On May 15, 2006, at 6:26 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:

> On 5/15/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Could it be done in the ALT tag? It seems to me that there is a
>> mismatch between those who want attribution to be readily available,
>> and what people actually want when they click on the image. I
>> think if
>> people actually want to know who created the image, it's pretty easy
>> to find out. But honestly, have you ever wondered who made an image
>> that you clicked on somewhere on the web? Why would you care?
>
> I do not believe an alt tag would be sufficient.
>
> We frequently receive requests from commercial publishers for image
> copyright information, even with how easily it is currently provided.
>
> On *articles* I believe our behavior is ideal in almost all cases
> because we do exactly what is expected: we provide an enlarged copy of
> the image.  Most commercial news sites have the same behavior.
>
> As far as I can tell, the problem is limited to the main page and
> potentially the portals. Do you agree?
>
>> So, it makes sense that the information is available to anyone who
>> goes out of their way to look for it - but I don't see the value in
>> forcing it down people's throats, when they're actually trying to get
>> more information on a topic, and aren't per se interested in the
>> image.
>
> We can't require people to 'go out of their way to look for it'. We
> need to provided attribution in roughly the same manner as we do for
> the articles, and we need to make it reasonably accessible.
>
> There are people who argue that our current behavior is insufficient
> and whom want an inline byline.  But providing one runs the risk of
> just creating a greater mess (article authors don't get inline
> bylines, multiple editor images, and the requirements to provide
> historical data on GFDLed images).  Hiding it further is just not
> going to fly.
>
>> Magnus' suggestion would actually be the most visible, especially if
>> the attribution information was displayed directly on the page.
>>
>> Australia
>> (You clicked on [Australian flag.svg], created by Jim Smith)
>> Australia is a great country...
>> etc. The real problem is that we don't actually have attribution data
>> in a readily packaged form.
>
> Should read 'one of the problems with that proposal'.  :)
> What we currently do is fine, there is no great need to have an easily
> machine readable copyright holder with our current framework.
>
>> On many images, there are actually several
>> authors (due to touch ups etc). And there's no obvious way of working
>> out mechanically who actually "created" the image.
>
> Many? Well.. certainly not a majority. I would assume that ones with
> multiple editors are almost as common as ones with multiple copyright
> holders ... which would put us back in the same boat of having a long
> list of copyright holders.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 5/15/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Consensus provides the best protection of all.

But not from irony.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Baidupedia (the downside to free content?)

body:
On 5/15/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Rob Church wrote:
> > On 12/05/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >>> And if that's the case, can we sue?  Please?
> >>>
> >> Good luck with that.
> >
> > The Foundation can't, because it doesn't own the copyright to the
> > material. It's up to the copyright holder to enforce their licencing.
> >
>
> Could The Foundation sue /on behalf of/ those authors whose copyright
> has been violated?

INAL but my understanding is.
Under US law they could if given permission to do so by the copyright
holders (the situtation is compicated in the case of minors. The
foundation would probably need their parents/gardians permissions).

I don't know how chinese copyright law works and international
copyright law tends to get very complex very fast.
--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Block messages

body:
On 5/15/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/15/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 3RR should be expanded to {4,5}RR for first-time offenders who haven't
> > been notified of its existence, for the sake of courtesy and not biting
> > the newbies.
>
> I would suggest that instead, the rule is kept as is, but first-time
> violators are not blocked, but instead *strongly* warned.  "You would
> normally be blocked for this. Take a good read of [[WP:3RR]] and don't
> ever do it again."
>
> Steve

Back when I was last invovled the general approach was that if someone
was new (that was defined subjectively) and had not been informed of
the rule you would not be blocked. Our smater revert warriours
responded by warning their opponents about the rule after two reverts.

--
geni


subject: [Wikitech-l] Request: linkable images

body:
I understand you're problem, and I understand you are not talking
about what I'm talking about. I am talking about free icons, the
ICONS that are used as, well, icons - look up icons on the very
'wikipedia' we're discussing; they are meant to represent something.
When you click the 'harddrive' icon on you're computer, you expect to
open you're harddrive, not view information about  the harddrive
icon. I don't think that normal images should use this feature, or
perhaps even have the option - maybe we need a new Icon: namespace
just for free-domain-released icons like the crystal ones, that can
be substituted, and LINKED WITH. I don't care what license the icons
in the crystal pack have, and I'm sure no users do either - they just
want to get to their destination. I know you would get pissed if
you're beautiful picture or drawing of X were just passed on by,
without any attribution - fine. That sort of thing shouldn't be
linked ever for any reason that I see - I'm talking about images
BUILT for the PURPOSE of acting as an ICON representing and pointing
to something else. Right?

On May 15, 2006, at 8:58 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:

> On 5/15/06, Elliott F. Cable <ecable at avxw.com> wrote:
>> Reply from me, I BELIEVE I have a O.K. solution to this that we can
>> all agree with.
>>
>> There are already a multitude of 'tags' that  go on the image tag,
>> such as making it a thumb, the pixel width, an alt tag, things like
>> that - why not add a 'link tag'? If you supply, say,
>> [[Image:Chicago_icon|48px|:Chicago]] - then the image
>> Image:Chicago_icon would appear, liked to [[Chicago]]. To parse it,
>> just catch any line starting with a colon (just prefix main-namespace
>> links in this format with a single colon, as you do for
>> transclusion). Does anybody see the logic in this? And, for links of
>> this format, do something similar to the redirect - put a notice
>> where redirects go that this image pointed you *here*, go *HERE*
>> instead for information about this image.
>
> I find the redirect notice notion highly distasteful. Any other site
> with a behavior like that would get a takedown notice from me
> explaining that the attribution was effectively hidden.
>
> A small 'image credit' or 'image details' link below (or in an
> adjustable position) would, however, be acceptable.
>
>> Also, perhaps put the attribution in the alt-tag for images so linked
>> - we could make attribution a separate field on the upload screen -
>> that would also even help with the proposed upload-to-commons thing!
>
> Alt text will goof up people using screen readers because they expect
> the alt text to be an alternative to the image (i.e. a description of
> the image) as per the HTML standards. In the past it has also been
> suggested that the longdesc attribute be set to the image page, but no
> browsers that I'm aware of make longdesc available in any case.
>
>> Even if not the attribution thing, I really think a link-to option
>> would really simplify things for users.
>
> Yes it would be useful. So lets figure out how to make something that
> everyone will find acceptable.
>
> For a little more fodder for the discussion is that several of the
> non-english wikipedias (fr for their portals icons and de for their
> featured article image) already fail to provide attribution for a few
> their free images on their main page.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Google indexes quickly!

body:
On 5/15/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> Vanity isn't, but non-notable biography is, as is patent nonsense. If
> John Q. Highschoolstudent writes a vanity page, it'll say (in general
> terms) one of the following:
>
> 1. John Q. Highschoolstudent is on the track team and plays a mean
> game of Halo.
> 2. John Q. Highschoolstudent won the NBA Slam Dunk Competition in 2006.
>
> 1 is non-notable bio, 2 is patent nonsense. Those two CSD's alone are
> the vanity fork--almost all vanity articles will fall within at least
> one of tehm.

What is:
3. John Q. Highschoolstudent is a brilliant basketballer and has made
numerous appearences on TV.

Presume that we can't find any google references to back this up.
Presume (debatable) for the sake of argument that if the claim is
true, this is notable enough. Do we classify it as unverifiable? Do we
call it hoax? Is it still vanity, whatever that means?

Steve


subject: [Wikitech-l] Request: linkable images

body:
Hi,
  This has probably been requested, but would it be possible to allow
images to link to things other than the image file itself. Such a link
is, helpful in featured pictures candidates, or when the image is
being used as a thumbnail illustration in an article, but not helpful
when the image is being used to illustrate a subtopic.

Not sure how best to adapt the syntax, but maybe allowing something like this:

[[Australia|[[Image:Australian flag.svg]]]]

This would leave open the possibility of having an image be part of a
string that is linked.

Steve


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Chinese character rendering (was Re: Baidupedia (the
	downside to free content?))

body:
On 5/15/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
> > Err, just a little question: FireFox is rendering all the Chinese
> > characters as ? - anyone know what I have to do to make them appear? I
> > don't speak Chinese but it would be prettier...Arabic and Hebrew
> > characters tend to show up fine. FireFox 1.5.0.3 French btw.
> >
>
> What operating system? Which version?

Oh, right - XP pro, SP 2, 5.1.2600 (French)

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Block messages

body:
On 5/15/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> 3RR should be expanded to {4,5}RR for first-time offenders who haven't
> been notified of its existence, for the sake of courtesy and not biting
> the newbies.

I would suggest that instead, the rule is kept as is, but first-time
violators are not blocked, but instead *strongly* warned.  "You would
normally be blocked for this. Take a good read of [[WP:3RR]] and don't
ever do it again."

Steve