from_name: Lars Aronsson

subject: [Wikitech-l] LibraryThing features Wikipedia ISBN citations

body:
LibraryThing.com is a (commercial) website that allows users to
catalog their own book collections and compare it to what other
users have.  Picking up on my idea to data mine ISBN numbers out
of Wikipedia articles, LibraryThing now for each book presents a
list of which (English) Wikipedia articles reference that book.
The site's owner Tim Spalding explained how this works in his blog
on February 26,

http://www.librarything.com/blog/2007/02/wikipedia-citatons-with-feed.php

The idea is free for taking.  There are lots more data to be mined
out of Wikipedia (and sister projects) and reused in other
contexts.  One way to do the data mining is my Extraktor script,
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LA2/Extraktor

Note that GFDL must still be respected.  But since ISBN extraction
and other kinds of cross-referencing don't copy text or images,
these actions are not subject to copyright.  And since the whole
purpose is to link back to Wikipedia, I think there is every
reason to encourage this kind of reuse.

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


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Human eye

body:
I think I was quite clear. If you want to change policy, then start a thread
about that, but don't post them on a thread about a fully unrelated problem
and pretend that everything suddenly is fine if we just do what you want.

2007/3/8, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com>:
>
> Huh? What was that about?
>
> On 3/8/07, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!! As if answering to your pet peeves would solve all
> > problems in the fucking Wikipedia!!!
> >
> > 2007/3/8, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com>:
> >
> > >
> > > Automatically make a lot more people admins.
> > >
> > > Stop deleting so many things under the "notability" excuse.
> > >
> > > Assume Good Faith from contributors.
> > >
> > > Don't ban newbies under the SPA excuse.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
> > ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Human eye

body:
2007/3/8, Steve <subsume at gmail.com>:
>
> But Andre, its way more effective to hi-jack *all* threads and steer
> them towards a lot of talk about deletionist/admin reform ....and then
> propose nothing actionable. =)
>
> Not dismissing you, Cunctator. I agree on all counts. Its just
> something I notice on this list.
>
> Andre. That was far from clear, buddy. Thanks for clarifying.
>

My apologies too - my wording in the original message was unnecessarily
confronting. I wish I could stop reacting that way, would be better for my
furniture too.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


list: foundation-l

from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [Foundation-l] Censorship: Speedy deletion of porn articles

body:
On 3/8/07, Yonatan Horan <yonatanh at gmail.com> wrote:

> It has recently (about two months ago) come to my attention that articles
> on
> the Hebrew Wikipedia are speedy deleted. I translated the Jenna Jameson
> article from the English Wikipedia and it was very quickly speedy deleted
> and I was indefinitely blocked due to being a sockpuppet of some guy (of
> course no checkuser request was done).

<snip>

Anyway, despite all the above, a few admins have
> said that they will speedy delete any porn articles created on the Hebrew
> Wikipedia. Currently there are a few porn articles which are about the
> movie
> Deep Throat and two other articles that I don't recall at the moment. This
> is a foundation issue because the situation right now is effectively
> censorship of articles that some people feel do not have a place on the
> wikipedia.

Contrary to the snide response of Gerard, this is a real issue. Articles
which pass muster in one language should not be blocked in another one.


list: wikimedia-l


body:
On 3/8/07, Sebastian Moleski <sebmol at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/8/07, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Contrary to the snide response of Gerard, this is a real issue. Articles
> > which pass muster in one language should not be blocked in another one.
>
>
> Can you elaborate on that? Does that not mean that the Wikipedia version
> with the most relaxed rules regarding what makes a suitable article topic
> gets to dictate policy for all others?
>

Policy should be consistent.


list: wikien-l

from_name: Anthony

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Accountability: bringing back a proposal I made
	nearly 2 years ago

body:
This story just hit the Google News front page.  The associated press
is reporting that Ryan was dismissed from Wikia.  Anyone know if this
is true or not?

Anthony


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [WikiEN-l] The Really-Free Library

body:
Interesting read, but the analogy doesn't work. For example, blocking
and protecting doesn't prevent reading, just editing. One person
reading/editing an article doesn't prevent anyone else from doing so.
Vandalism is easily reverted. IP's are blocked reluctantly because it
can stop other anon users from editing, it doesn't just discourage
them.

And the final conclusion makes no sense at all - what does "borrowing
and not returning" correspond to?


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] The Really-Free Library

body:
On 08/03/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/03/07, Roger Dearnaley <rpdearnaley at hotmail.com> wrote:

> > I stumbled on this interesting essay on an admin's user page:

> I don't think this essay is a very good allegory for Wikipedia (for
> example, I don't think the "protection room" works, the userbase is
> too different, physical=/=Internet). I suppose it's close enough to
> scare a few people.

And anyway, I thought the punchline was "But ... it's not your car!"

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Review

body:
> It's kind of vague, really.

Not really. There is clear consensus that if Jimbo says jump, we all
jump. People might express their disagreement, but they'll either jump
or leave, they won't stay and go against Jimbo's decision. Jimbo has
authority because we give it to him, and we give it to him because
he's been right in the past for more often than he's been wrong. It
may be informal, but that doesn't make it any less factual.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Review

body:
> Resigning from everything is the smartest thing that Essjay
> has done so far.

He didn't really have a choice. Being asked to resign and being fired
only differ by semantics. It just means the official record is a
little less damning, and you still get your pension. If Essjay hadn't
resigned, Jimbo would have used his executive prerogative and fired
him.


from_name: Aude

subject: [WikiEN-l] Dealing with juvenile vandalism

body:
" Developping some kind of working arrangement with the school involved
would make more sense."  - don't think this is practical given the volume of
vandalism coming from so many different school IPs, compared to our current
level of resources. ( e.g. Wikipedians)  We can always allow students to
create accounts, so the impact on good users is minimized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:156.3.138.6 - just blocked this one,
after they started vandalizing immediately after coming off of a block.  I
looked at a sample of edits from this IP address and don't see any positive
contributions.  Just vandalism.  There is a large {{schoolblock}} template
at the top that explains that users can create accounts and edit with
those.

Unless someone wants and can take the time to contact this school and the
numerous others, I don't see any other choice at this point.

-Aude

>I think this means I (and others) need to make blocks of school IPs be for
> >longer duration... the same for other repeat vandals.
> >
> Not at all.  That's a simplistic solution.  Such blocks would have an
> effect of blocking all users from the school, including the good ones
> who do not condone vandalism.  Developping some kind of working
> arrangement with the school involved would make more sense.  Work with
> them to identify and deal with the offenders at a local level.  Find out
> if they have local policies requiring students to log on that would lead
> to a possible identification of which users were on line at the time
> that the vandalism took place.
>
> Ec
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Aude


body:
On 3/8/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: The Cunctator [mailto:cunctator at gmail.com]
> >Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2007 02:07 PM
> >To: 'Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List'
> >Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Censorship: Speedy deletion of porn articles
>
> >Contrary to the snide response of Gerard, this is a real issue. Articles
> >which pass muster in one language should not be blocked in another one.
>
> Cultures differ, what is not notable in one culture is a serious offense
> in another.

Since when are the different language Wikipedias supposed to defend
nationalistic or cultural norms?

You seem to imply that the NPOV varies from language to language.

And here I was all this time thinking that it's a neutral point of view, not
a culturally biased point of view.

We really need the single user login.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Radio 2, this afternoon

body:
Apparently I'll be talking to someone-or-other around 5:25pm. I think
it's live, not recorded.

- d.


body:
On 3/7/07, Sheldon Rampton <sheldon at prwatch.org> wrote:
>
> On Mar 7, 2007, at 6:18 PM, wikien-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
>
> > It is clear the WP culture needs work, care, and nurturing. But I
> > still do
> > not believe this can be accomplished by creating more RULES.
>
> Are you kidding? The entire Wikipedia community only exists BECAUSE
> of rules. Some of them look like the 3 revert rule, and some of them
> look like this:
>
> $wgAllowExternalImages = true;
>
> Rules are how a community formalizes its understanding of how members
> should behave within it. It's a much better way of shaping a culture
> than arbitrary mob action or arbitrary, case-by-case orders from some
> dictator. What's your alternative?

As you indicate, there are different kinds of rules.  Lessig has explicated
a lot of the differences and how they affect communities differently.
Sometimes computer code is best suited; sometimes explicit rules are best;
sometimes cultural norms are best.


from_name: Matthew Brown

body:
On 3/8/07, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> Part of the source of confusion is that he was dismissed from ArbCom but
> resigned from Wikia.

Technically, IIRC, asked to resign from ArbCom, if there's a
difference.  Not asked to wrt Wikia (at least not in public that I
saw).

-Matt


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Autograph pages

body:
On 3/8/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ANNAfoxlover

To continue the story, ANNAfoxlover apologises for spamming.
Alphachimp removes the spam from all the affected users. Affected
users thank Alphachimp, and award him (her/ it?) a barnstar. And then:

--
After the above comment I thought I'd let you know (if you didn't
already... ) that others (such as myself) do not believe it was a good
idea what you did. Sure deleting spam from articles and even article
talk pages as well is a good thing, but it is my belief that you
should let the user decide what do with stuff that is on the user's
talk page.
--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alphachimp

*sigh*

Steve


body:
On 3/8/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> There would still be edit conflicts.  Let's say the delay is 15 minutes.  At
> 8:00, anon edits a sentence (validly). At 8:05, registered user edits the
> same sentence differently.  What happens?  Okay, now it's 8:15, time for the
> anon edit to go live.  What happens then?

I may not have explained it well. Would this help:

7.55: World sees "Mary is smart." Editors see "Mary is smart."
8:00: World sees "Mary is smart." Editors see "Mary is a poopoo."
8:05: World sees "Mary has an IQ of 130." Editors see "Mary has an IQ of 130."
8:15: World sees "Mary has an IQ of 130." Editors see "Mary has an IQ of 130."

So you see, at 8:05, a registered editor sees the anon change, and
fixes it. Since the editor is registered, their change goes live
straight away.

Steve


body:
On 3/8/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> So you see, at 8:05, a registered editor sees the anon change, and
> fixes it. Since the editor is registered, their change goes live
> straight away.

The obvious benefits here:
- The world never saw the anon's (bad) edits
- Registered editors were not inconvenienced at all
- There is still scope for anon's edits to make it to the outside
world. The 15 minute delay above could be 5 minutes for a heavily
patrolled article, or 3 days for a more obscure one.

Unsolved questions:
- What happens if a registered editor edits some unrelated part of the
article? Is any change considered to implicitly "approve" any pending
anon edits?
- What version of the page should the anon see? His changes? Is this
even possible?
- What version of the page should other anons see if they edit?
Presumably the real version...

Steve


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Learning

body:
 > Soon afterwards we are taught to cover up, keep our mouths shut, and keep
> our hands to ourselves.

> Marc

Subsequently we learn to sign with four tildes, use preview, and add short but informative edit summaries. After which WP will treat you as a grown-up.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam


list: wikitech-l

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wiki XML

body:
On 3/8/07, Steve Sanbeg <ssanbeg at ask.com> wrote:
> Of course, we could consider wysiwyg to be be one of those programs,
> encoding what it understands into XML, and flagging what it doesn't,
> editing, then reversing it.  So the medium could be a partial conversion,
> but done on the fly, and dealt with by the application.

Are you suggesting that you might end up with a chunk like:

<XML>
...
<UNRECOGNISED>
  <CHUNK text="Some unrecognised code with
{{funky!syntax|not..supported|by]]] wikiwyg" />
</UNRECOGNISED>
...
</XML>

The concept sounds vaguely doable, but pretty much any comments not
from the main mediawiki developers aren't even worth $0.02.

Steve


subject: [Wikitech-l] AJAX and .aspx as technologies for MediaWiki?

body:
On 3/8/07, Nick Jenkins <nickpj at gmail.com> wrote:
> ... and there, proof-by-existence, you have a MediaWiki null edit that changes
> something :-)

Isn't there a simpler way, something like:

{{subst:tilde}}{{subst:tilde}}{{subst:tilde}}{{subst:tilde}} ?

Steve


body:
On 3/8/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/8/07, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
> > Or how about:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Lynde
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Sargent
> >
> > I guess its OK to "out" them since they are deceased now -- doesn't
> > matter what impact it might
> > have on their children or grandchildren? This is my point.
>
> Why should it have an impact?

Although the identification of Paul Lynde as gay is unsourced and
so-tagged.  The article on Dick Sargent states that he came out as gay
in later life, so this is definitely not an outing if the article is
correct (again, it needs sourcing).

-Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] [Wikimediauk-l] Radio 2, this afternoon

body:
On 08/03/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/03/07, Gary Kirk <gary.kirk at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Whoever he is, the presenter just said "Wikipedia next".

> Chris Evans. I'm on the phone right now, waiting to go on ...

Well, that was pretty good! Hope it gets us useful readers and
contributors. And money. GIVE US MONEY. WE'RE A CHARITY. SO WE CAN SAY
THAT ON THE BBC.

- d.


body:
On 3/8/07, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>
> The Cunctator wrote:
>
> >Since when are the different language Wikipedias supposed to defend
> >nationalistic or cultural norms?
> >
> >
> Since the English Wikipedia folks do JUST THAT, as an example. Why
> should there be categories such as
> LGBT entertainers, authors, etc. There are no categories for HETERO
> authors, actors, etc. Oh, I forgot,
> that's a CUTTURAL NORM on the english Wikipedia that we OPENLY DISCUSS

I believe you meant "CULTURAL", not "CUTTURAL".

sexual behavior and put
> labels on people, whether they like it or not, or whatever or not is
> offends others, and then RAM IT DOWN
> EVERYONE ELSE'S THROATS.

Interesting choice of language, there.

There's a great example of an open cultural norm on the English
> Wikipedia. Putting labels on people prevents you from seeing the real
> person beneath and fosters BIAS. Something we should avoid.

If I'm not mistaken, the labels are going on articles, not people.

In essence, what I am saying here is that the OPENNESS and NPOV
> viewpoints are PART OF THE ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA CULTURE. I agree
> they are erstwhile concepts and important, but they are very much
> European attitudes, and not all cultures embrace them the same way.

Impressive, that you consider NPOV, the core policy of Wikipedia (not just
the English Wikipedia), part of the English Wikipedia culture.

>You seem to imply that the NPOV varies from language to language.
> >
> >
> Yep. It does.

Do you recognize that as a problem?


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Why have admins of unblock-en-l blocked me?

body:
On 3/8/07, Steve <subsume at gmail.com> wrote:
> What on earth is wrong with you?
>
> Even if he is Vampire-Kim-Jong-Hitler, I'm not sure an outright ban
> from unblock-en is appropriate. What recourse can someone take from
> that point?
>
> -S
>
> On 3/8/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Because you are a racist :-) You probably even deny the indigenous
> > status of the Ainu.
> >
> > Regardless of whether or not Korean and Chinese claims have been
> > exaggerated, it is undeniable that those countries WERE invaded by
> > Japan. Whether the Empire was all nice and cuddly to its
> > non-ethnically-Japanese subjects is debatable, but it is not debatable
> > that these places were invaded without invitation.
> >
> > And stop being so arrogant, you are not "pure", you are not "special",
> > you are not somehow better or smarter than Koreans or Chinese people.
> > We are all human beings.
> >
> > And if you were blocked without a reason, as you claim, I'm sure you
> > would've been blocked very soon because of your explicit and unwelcome
> > racism.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 08/03/07, Rocky 7 <freudianjungianp at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi, I am Rocky7.
> > >
> > > Admins of unblock-en-l have not delivered mails of unblock-en-l since May
> > > 4, 2007.
> > >
> > > Admins of unblock-en-l have not allowed me to enter unblock-en-l Archives.
> > >
> > > Q1. Why have admins of unblock-en-l blocked me with no explanation?
> > >
> > > Q2. Why do you cling to closed unfair trial?
> > >
> > > Q3. Why do you stick to Chinese or Korean facism trial?
> > >
> > >
> > > Re: unblock-en-l identification?
> > > (Reply to Prodego)
> > > You(at least Luna and Prodego) have been stalking, indeed, and
> > > I don't think you(all admins) would be subjected to
> > > non-admins' stalking.
> > > How can we(non-admins) do stalking?
> > > We can't know even your IP addresses, unless you email
> > > me(us) personally.
> > >
> > > On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, Prodego <prodego at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >Errr, what? I don't think the idea of anonymity will go away soon,
> > > >a large majority of admins, myself included, would be subjected
> > > >to stalking, which has actually happened to quite a few people.
> > > >
> > > >Prodego
> > >
> > > He's a lying scoundrel...?!
> > >
> > >
> > > >On 3/4/07, Rocky7 <FreudianJungianP at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>Now admins' real identifications are needed to be revealed.
> > > >>Stop such a nasty intrigue, or all admins would not be
> > > >>trusted because of your timidness and wickedness.

He's complaining that we unsubscribed him from the list, not that we
aren't listening to his complaints.  We unsubscribed him because
people send identifying information to the unblock-en-l list fairly
often, and we had a number of trolls and abusive users sign up for the
list to gather information.

We aren't listening to his complaints at this point either, because he
has repeatedly sent us abusive and racist and threatening emails, and
we have a finite tolerance for that.

Unblock-en-l was not designed to be another step or venue in the
serious ongoing abusive user management process.  The venue and
responsible authorities for that are Arbcom, who also accept emailed
requests.

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


body:
"David Gerard" wrote

> Well, that was pretty good!

For [[Chris Evans]] ... maybe an impression of [[Richie Benaud]] would have added something?

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Review

body:
On 3/8/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > It's kind of vague, really.
>
> Not really. There is clear consensus that if Jimbo says jump, we all
> jump.

How is that going with the new credential confirmation proposal?

--
geni


body:
On 08/03/07, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "David Gerard" wrote

> > Well, that was pretty good!

> For [[Chris Evans]] ... maybe an impression of [[Richie Benaud]] would have added something?

I tried to talk out my nose!

- d.


from_name: Steve

body:
What on earth is wrong with you?

Even if he is Vampire-Kim-Jong-Hitler, I'm not sure an outright ban
from unblock-en is appropriate. What recourse can someone take from
that point?

-S

On 3/8/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> Because you are a racist :-) You probably even deny the indigenous
> status of the Ainu.
>
> Regardless of whether or not Korean and Chinese claims have been
> exaggerated, it is undeniable that those countries WERE invaded by
> Japan. Whether the Empire was all nice and cuddly to its
> non-ethnically-Japanese subjects is debatable, but it is not debatable
> that these places were invaded without invitation.
>
> And stop being so arrogant, you are not "pure", you are not "special",
> you are not somehow better or smarter than Koreans or Chinese people.
> We are all human beings.
>
> And if you were blocked without a reason, as you claim, I'm sure you
> would've been blocked very soon because of your explicit and unwelcome
> racism.
>
> Mark
>
> On 08/03/07, Rocky 7 <freudianjungianp at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi, I am Rocky7.
> >
> > Admins of unblock-en-l have not delivered mails of unblock-en-l since May
> > 4, 2007.
> >
> > Admins of unblock-en-l have not allowed me to enter unblock-en-l Archives.
> >
> > Q1. Why have admins of unblock-en-l blocked me with no explanation?
> >
> > Q2. Why do you cling to closed unfair trial?
> >
> > Q3. Why do you stick to Chinese or Korean facism trial?
> >
> >
> > Re: unblock-en-l identification?
> > (Reply to Prodego)
> > You(at least Luna and Prodego) have been stalking, indeed, and
> > I don't think you(all admins) would be subjected to
> > non-admins' stalking.
> > How can we(non-admins) do stalking?
> > We can't know even your IP addresses, unless you email
> > me(us) personally.
> >
> > On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, Prodego <prodego at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >Errr, what? I don't think the idea of anonymity will go away soon,
> > >a large majority of admins, myself included, would be subjected
> > >to stalking, which has actually happened to quite a few people.
> > >
> > >Prodego
> >
> > He's a lying scoundrel...?!
> >
> >
> > >On 3/4/07, Rocky7 <FreudianJungianP at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>Now admins' real identifications are needed to be revealed.
> > >>Stop such a nasty intrigue, or all admins would not be
> > >>trusted because of your timidness and wickedness.
> > >>
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > ????????????????????????????2,000???????????????????????????`??????
> > http://onecare.live.jp
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanm?? yo paske nou posede pw??p bato.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 3/8/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> No one is interested in makeing lists of hetrosexual actors.
> It isn't POV to describe say Ian McKellen as gay.

So much drama.

Why can't we argue about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Autofellatio.ogg  instead?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Learning

body:
On 08/03/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:

> We are born naked, screaming, and reaching.

and covered in blood. But If you live your life right, that sort of
thing doesn't have to stop there.

- d.


from_name: Michael Bimmler

subject: [WikiEN-l] Review

body:
On 3/8/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/8/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > It's kind of vague, really.
> >
> > Not really. There is clear consensus that if Jimbo says jump, we all
> > jump.
>
> How is that going with the new credential confirmation proposal?
>
>
The "credentials confirmation proposal" is exactly this, it is a
proposal and thus a subject to discussion. It is not a decision, an
order or a "Please introduce this. Now."

Michael
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Delirium

body:
Mark Williamson wrote:

> Because you are a racist :-) You probably even deny the indigenous
> status of the Ainu.

I would hope that's not the reason... if we were to block people for
holding objectionable opinions (even exceedingly objectionable ones), I
could submit a very long list of names of people to be blocked,
including many admins!

-Mark


body:
On 3/8/07, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/8/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > This story just hit the Google News front page.  The associated press
> > is reporting that Ryan was dismissed from Wikia.  Anyone know if this
> > is true or not?
>
> Ryan was not dismissed. He resigned.
>
> Angela

Part of the source of confusion is that he was dismissed from ArbCom but
resigned from Wikia.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Dealing with juvenile vandalism

references:
<4de603bb0703071644k2fee61b3wfd203e7a634a36ed@mail.gmail.com>
	<002101c76122$b879f090$296dd1b0$@com>
	<4de603bb0703071746g742ba9d6kbe74f3aeeeaf9fcc@mail.gmail.com>
	<45EF6D17.1060508@internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<45EFD59E.4040008@telus.net>
	<jbovu25eank38lm4jmmvesh9r1lmd9bmdj@4ax.com>
	<4313.69.21.252.114.1173369276.squirrel@www.internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<45F03469.4020706@hackish.org>
	<b8ceeef70703081637q42761d42h47b2ac1dd1a3c30c@mail.gmail.com>

body:
The time-lag for anons. would greatly reduce the gratification and "rewards"
of making vandalism edits.  That would help a lot in reducing the volume of
vandalism.  I'm not sure if/how stable versions fits into this, but think it
probably can be considered as a separate matter.

-Aude

On 3/8/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/9/07, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> > I recall bringing the issue up on this mailing list (or possibly
> > wikipedia-l?) a few months ago, and not only was consensus strongly in
> > favor, but there wasn't a *single* post opposed to it. There were just
> > disagreements over the best way to do it.
>
> Depends what issue you're talking about. I strongly prefer a time-lag
> model to a stable version model. If you're conflating the two, yes I'm
> in favour of doing *something*. If you're separating them, I'm against
> the stable version model.
>
> The stable version model is along the lines of certain users
> designating a particular revision as being "stable" and that being the
> one displayed to the outside world, permanently, until another "stable
> version" is chosen. It seems to have such obvious drawbacks:
> - choosing users to do the designation
> - stable versions being horribly out of date
> - killing the wiki model completely (now almost no one can edit and
> get the instant feedback)
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Aude


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposal for simplified credentials model

body:
William Pietri wrote:
> There are plenty of companies in the credential validation business.
> Most of them are set up for slightly different uses, but I'm sure there
> are some creative ones we could work with.

I would want to see some pretty strong evidence or arguments that
verified credentials would actually have a significant positive value to
Wikipedia before setting up such a system on our own, let alone paying
for it.

Really, I think we're working ourselves into a tizzy here over something
that remains to be proved will have any long-term significance.
"Scandals" flare up and die away all the time, many of them leaving
almost no trace in the press or history books. Let's not hurriedly
implement something just to maybe make it go away a little faster.

I'm going to be giving a radio interview tomorrow morning about the
Essjay affair and I plan to use it mostly as an opportunity to inform
listeners about Wikipedia's status as a tertiary source and our policy
of referencing stuff to outside sources. If people understood that
better this molehill wouldn't seem nearly so mountainous, IMO.

> The notion is that for anybody who would like their credentials
> validated, they can pay a third party to do the work.

I don't imagine that setting up a system where Wikipedia editors have to
pay money out of their own pockets to gain status on Wikipedia would be
a good way to reduce bad press about us. :)


body:
On 08/03/07, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:

> Is there possible compromise between your position and Eric's?
> There are plenty of companies in the credential validation business.
> Most of them are set up for slightly different uses, but I'm sure there
> are some creative ones we could work with.

As I said, I'm not sure even this is needed - given the reaction to
Essjay's false claims, I do think just being honest is enough.

For a comparison, look at User:172 - he claims expertise, but he wants
to stay completely anonymous. But that's fine, because he *shows*
expertise. (And only an academic could reference the way he does ...)
He has a certain impatience with idiots, but a saintly disposition in
the face of blithering stupidity is probably the very hardest thing to
achieve in the zen of Wiki, and quite forgivable ...

I do think just letting people claim what credentials they want to is
enough for now, because the community oppobrium at any respected
user's credentials turning out fake is *exceedingly* harsh, and
probably worse the more trusted they are. (Which is why the Essjay
thing sucks so much.)

- d.


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] postcomment extension

body:
On 08/03/07, Travis Derouin <travis at wikihow.com> wrote:
> I've added an extension we've been using at wikihow for awhile to
> easily post new messages to discussion pages:

* Is this not somewhat redundant, given that discussion pages can have
"new section" links, and that InputBox can handle this, to some
extent?

* The extension outputs a lot of invalid XHTML, which can *break the
whole thing* if MediaWiki is configured to output the MIME type
text/xml.

Rob Church


from_name: K P

body:
IMO, the problem with the Essjay mess (of which I read very little) is that
someone, the  news media, thought his credentials mattered--apparently as
much as he did.  Shouldn't the content of what he was writing have spoken
for itself?  Do we have to buy into the news media putting so much into his
credentials?

I don't think credentials are a good idea.  And I love what The Cunctator
said:

"Frankly, I think one of the benefits of Wikipedia is that it forces people
to become disabused of Arguments by Authority, to force people to engage in
critical thinking, etc.

Why? Because it doesn't rely on the lazy trappings of credentials and
curricula vitae and titles and celebrity endorsement, etc."

One of the best Wikipedia editors I've worked with on Wikipedia appears to
be a young teenager.  Why should it matter when she's careful, dedicated,
makes an effort to work with other editors, and is able to research
information and format and write credibly?  When I wanted help with an
African cardiovascular surgeon, she was the person I asked--because she's
one of the few non-botanical, non-Afghan editors I know.  She's established
the most important credential of them all: competence, as exhibited by her
body of work at Wikipedia (available in her edit history).  And I trust her,
because I can see by her work that she's worthy of it.

Now, we're going to say, "anyone can edit,"  but the reader should know when
the person editing isn't just anybody, but is somebody special and
credentialed?  Whatever for?

And, now, it's not just that anyone can edit, but that those who edit and
have standardized degrees from "certified" academic institutions get status.
 Someone else mentioned the difficulty in understanding foreign academic
credentials.

 What about someone who studied a craft under one of the world's leading
practitioners of that craft? Herbalists?  Acupuncturists outside of
California and the countries in the world that credential it?  Will we be
checking credentials from Vietnamese, North Korean, Afghanistan and Mongolia,
or, again, just standard western academic credentials?  State-certified
schools from those other countries?  Or do we only have credentialed editors
in the areas that Western academic considers important enough to offer
credentials in?  Why should these areas be special, the ivory towers be
revered?

Naturalists are out.  Forget about African drummers.  The world's leading
Persian rug-makers probably can't get verified in their field by Wikipedia,
because they probably didn't learn from a western credentialed academic
institute.

I don't think credentials is the answer to the Essjay problem, because I
think the problem was with the press, not with Wikipedia.  I think it might
amount to Wikipedia users judging articles by the editors' credentials,
while Wikipedia editors are still judging articles by the editors
established credibility in the community.  This might be bad, it might make
more of Essjay, where we view the world one way, and the press another.
And it could wind up relying upon western academic standards and reinforcing
the ivory tower than anybody is currently tearing down.  Whatever for?
KP


from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Conservapedia

body:
> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
>> On Thu, 8 Mar 2007, "Steve Bennett" wrote:
>>
>>
>>> These arguments seem to be predicated on the false assumption
>>> that any
>>> English speaker can write equally well in British or US spelling.
>>> It's
>>> not the case. Most Americans think "tyre" is a typo, not a British
>>> spelling.
>>>
>>
> They never tyre of their differences. :-)
>
> Ec

So, how do the British spell "Nineveh?"


from_name: Jeffrey V. Merkey

subject: [Wikitech-l] Approved BOT Code

body:
Which are considered the best bots in use on Wikipedia and is the code
available?

Jeff


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject:
[WikiEN-l] [Foundation-l] Accountability: bringing back
	a	proposal I made nearly 2 years ago

body:
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 23:36:58 +0900, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com>
wrote:

>I think we can keep the two issues separate: knowing who people are if
>they are in positions of trust is interesting and important, but quite
>different in some important ways from the issue of stating credentials.

Right, but then we get to the tricky bit: an editor, call him Jayess,
comes along, stating he has a PhD in something-or-other, and people
decide to ask him to *prove* it because he's relying on it to confer
authority in content disputes.  Do we have a "put up or shut up"
clause?

That's the sticking point for some, I think - and there will be those
who think it's useless without, and those who think it's evil with, so
it's not an easy call.

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


subject: [Wikitech-l] Approved BOT Code

body:
Dan Collins wrote:

>Well there are the Python and Perl wikipedia frameworks, both re available,
>WP:AWB is also used, though that may be closed source.
>
>
Thanks!

Jeff

>On 3/8/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Which are considered the best bots in use on Wikipedia and is the code
>>available?
>>
>>Jeff
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Wikitech-l mailing list
>>Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Review

body:
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:16:21 -0500, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org>
wrote:

>It's kind of vague, really.  Historically, the Arbitration Committee
>took over the roles Jimmy previously exercised.  Informally, he
>currently heads it (from afar, mostly), and has authority to veto its
>decisions, appoint/remove members, etc.  Even more informally, he does
>so in accordance with community approval (elections, the policy
>ratification vote, etc.).  At one point Jimmy was also formally in
>charge, but now in hierarchical terms the Foundation's Board of
>Directors would be, with Jimmy retaining informal/customary authority
>over some English-Wikipedia-specific processes.  Now that authority over
>the community is mostly effective because the community tacticly
>approves of it, so teasing out which has priority is tricky.

Unless you are English, where the concept of a constitutional monarchy
is something we've always lived with :o)  Yesterday I was riding along
the Queen's highway.  Literally - The Mall.

Authority here derives from the monarch, but is vested in others, and
any attempt to exercise power against the will of the people would
cause problems.  It took us a couple of hundred years to get the
balance right, and it's still changing.  But over that entire period,
the country remained governable and tolerably well-regulated.  Is that
so bad?

To paraphrase a fellow Englishman, Jimbocracy is the very worst system
of government, apart from all the others.

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


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
Each Wikipedia is autonomous. So long as they fall within the very broad Wikipedia policies which apply to all language versions, they are free to conduct the matters you are discussing as they see fit. As to censorship, the English Wikipedia also regularly deletes objectionable material, but applies a different standard. We also ban users, but are much more careful. As a consequence we have some very nasty material that has been impossible to get rid of, and sometimes let users disrupt the site for months before we finally come to a decision to ban them.

We have to deal with thousands of people; thus there is no way to simply grok what needs to be done and do it. A smaller, more cohesive community may feel able to proceed in a more intuitive way, but as noted, mistakes can be make.

Fred

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Yonatan Horan [mailto:yonatanh at gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2007 01:32 PM
>To: foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>Subject: [Foundation-l] Censorship: Speedy deletion of porn articles
>
>Hi,
>
>It has recently (about two months ago) come to my attention that articles on
>the Hebrew Wikipedia are speedy deleted. I translated the Jenna Jameson
>article from the English Wikipedia and it was very quickly speedy deleted
>and I was indefinitely blocked due to being a sockpuppet of some guy (of
>course no checkuser request was done). By the way, I don't particularly like
>porn articles or anything of the sort; in fact, I don't believe I've ever
>edited a porn article on the enwp which I'm very active on. After a few days
>(during which I complained on Danny's enwp talk page and thus got the
>attention of a Hebrew Wikipedia admin and later spoke on the phone with
>another admin from hewp) I was unblocked. I'm guessing there have probably
>been other people who just gave up after they were banned and didn't return.
>
>The situation is basically that if a user who isn't well-known on the hewp
>(someone outside of a group of about 100 users) creates such an article he
>will probably be perm-banned and if anyone else does so, the article will
>probably just be speedy deleted. No rule has been passed on the Hebrew
>Wikipedia regarding this and even if it had been passed, it would be in
>violation of WMF (?) guidelines as Wikipedia is not censored. Some claim
>that a rule has been passed but many admins disagree with this. The "vote"
>was passed about two years ago and had 10-20 participants. In addition to
>this, the vote came at a time when the Hebrew Wikipedia was repeatedly
>vandalized by a certain user and many of the voters supposedly for the
>banning of porn articles referred only to this specific case (this is
>supported by their comments on the page).
>
>By the way, just so nobody corrects me, on the Hebrew Wikipedia *there are
>votes* since consensus is hardly ever reached and the total needed to pass a
>vote is a ridiculous 55%. Anyway, despite all the above, a few admins have
>said that they will speedy delete any porn articles created on the Hebrew
>Wikipedia. Currently there are a few porn articles which are about the movie
>Deep Throat and two other articles that I don't recall at the moment. This
>is a foundation issue because the situation right now is effectively
>censorship of articles that some people feel do not have a place on the
>wikipedia. I know I will probably have those who disagree with me be
>notified of this discussion at some point at which point the slandering will
>begin and I will be called a "snitch" and possibly other more colorful terms
>so I ask ahead of time for this discussion to remain civil. Although I hate
>to burden Danny, who probably has a lot of more important things to do, he
>is the only one who speaks both Hebrew and English and could take care of
>this issue since he is obviously a person trusted by most. Anyway I think
>I've written more than enough on an issue that should be pretty
>straightforward, that is, that wikipedia is not censored.
>
>Thanks,
>Yonatan
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
On 3/8/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> When you think that people are interested in what can be perceived as a
> provocation, you are wrong. What makes you think that details about porn is
> of sufficient relevance to warrant an article?

It really rather depends. Jenna Jameson has to an extent crossed over
into the mainstream. Ron Jeremy would be the other one with a similar
level of coverage

While there may be arguments over where to draw the line bits of porn
are probably noteable.
--
geni


body:
On 3/8/07, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> Contrary to the snide response of Gerard, this is a real issue. Articles
> which pass muster in one language should not be blocked in another one.

The problem with that is that it either requires a lot of work at
foundation level or is likely to result in EN dictateing terms to
everyone else on the basis it is likely to consider most issues before
anyone else.

--
geni


body:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: The Cunctator [mailto:cunctator at gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2007 02:07 PM
>To: 'Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List'
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Censorship: Speedy deletion of porn articles

>Contrary to the snide response of Gerard, this is a real issue. Articles
>which pass muster in one language should not be blocked in another one.

Cultures differ, what is not notable in one culture is a serious offense in another.

Fred


body:
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 10:58:28 -0500 (EST), "Jeff Raymond"
<jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:

>Not to mention that he gained the trust through the hard work in part
>because of his credentials - all edits being equal, I'm going to have a
>higher level of informational trust from someone who has a PhD than
>someone who does not.

Credentials are, in my view, not that important; I do, however, find
it easier to trust those who have a few grey hairs.  Maybe we need age
verification :o)

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


body:
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 14:34:38 +0000, <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
wrote:

> Wikipedia has in the past been a place where people do not usually 'argue from authority', based on claims to be qualified.  I don't think that should change.

Sure.  But in meta-debates, such as naming conventions, or deletions,
subject expertise may be directly relevant to the weight we *should*
give to an editor's opinion.  Fir example, I generally defer to Phil
Sandifer on matters relating to web comics, because as far as I can
tell he is by way of being an expert.

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


body:
On 3/8/07, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> Policy should be consistent.

Not always. Copyright policy isn't consistant. 3RR doesn't have to exist.

Inclussion policies are a tricky issue however.

--
geni


body:
On 3/8/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> This story just hit the Google News front page.  The associated press
> is reporting that Ryan was dismissed from Wikia.  Anyone know if this
> is true or not?
>
> Anthony

The evidence we have suggests he resigned.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Why have admins of unblock-en-l blocked me?

body:
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:52:12 -0500, "Rocky 7"
<freudianjungianp at hotmail.com> wrote:

>Q1. Why have admins of unblock-en-l blocked me with no explanation?
>Q2. Why do you cling to closed unfair trial?
>Q3. Why do you stick to Chinese or Korean facism trial?

In case anyone wondered, the answer to Q1 is that we did, under
several previous identities, it's hardly our fault that the guy is
incapable of editing within policy; the answer to Q2 is that unblock-l
is not a trial, he is free to appeal to ArbCom and has been told so
(but ArbCom would probably speedily endorse the block) and question 3
is the clue to his identity - I think we saw him before as
<criticize_anti-japanese-racism at hotmail.co.jp> or some such crap.  A
card-carrying loon, anyway.

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


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Accountability: bringing back a proposal I
 madenearly 2 years ago

body:
He resigned, a couple of days ago.

Fred

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Anthony [mailto:wikilegal at inbox.org]
>Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2007 02:17 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Accountability: bringing back a proposal I made	nearly 2 years ago
>
>This story just hit the Google News front page.  The associated press
>is reporting that Ryan was dismissed from Wikia.  Anyone know if this
>is true or not?
>
>Anthony
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Dan Collins

subject: [Wikitech-l] Approved BOT Code

body:
Well there are the Python and Perl wikipedia frameworks, both re available,
WP:AWB is also used, though that may be closed source.

On 3/8/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>
>
> Which are considered the best bots in use on Wikipedia and is the code
> available?
>
> Jeff
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

--
ST47
Editor, en.wikipedia


from_name: GerardM

body:
Hoi,
When you think that people are interested in what can be perceived as a
provocation, you are wrong. What makes you think that details about porn is
of sufficient relevance to warrant an article? You have to appreciate that
some Wikipedias are quite happy to even disallow articles about Pokomon
characters. Now Pokomon creatures are much more educational. They are the
staple diet of our youth.

Danny is a WMF employee, I believe he has more important things to do than
to indulge your misplaced sense of outrage.

Thanks,
   GerardM

On 3/8/07, Yonatan Horan <yonatanh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> It has recently (about two months ago) come to my attention that articles
> on
> the Hebrew Wikipedia are speedy deleted. I translated the Jenna Jameson
> article from the English Wikipedia and it was very quickly speedy deleted
> and I was indefinitely blocked due to being a sockpuppet of some guy (of
> course no checkuser request was done). By the way, I don't particularly
> like
> porn articles or anything of the sort; in fact, I don't believe I've ever
> edited a porn article on the enwp which I'm very active on. After a few
> days
> (during which I complained on Danny's enwp talk page and thus got the
> attention of a Hebrew Wikipedia admin and later spoke on the phone with
> another admin from hewp) I was unblocked. I'm guessing there have probably
> been other people who just gave up after they were banned and didn't
> return.
>
> The situation is basically that if a user who isn't well-known on the hewp
> (someone outside of a group of about 100 users) creates such an article he
> will probably be perm-banned and if anyone else does so, the article will
> probably just be speedy deleted. No rule has been passed on the Hebrew
> Wikipedia regarding this and even if it had been passed, it would be in
> violation of WMF (?) guidelines as Wikipedia is not censored. Some claim
> that a rule has been passed but many admins disagree with this. The "vote"
> was passed about two years ago and had 10-20 participants. In addition to
> this, the vote came at a time when the Hebrew Wikipedia was repeatedly
> vandalized by a certain user and many of the voters supposedly for the
> banning of porn articles referred only to this specific case (this is
> supported by their comments on the page).
>
> By the way, just so nobody corrects me, on the Hebrew Wikipedia *there are
> votes* since consensus is hardly ever reached and the total needed to pass
> a
> vote is a ridiculous 55%. Anyway, despite all the above, a few admins have
> said that they will speedy delete any porn articles created on the Hebrew
> Wikipedia. Currently there are a few porn articles which are about the
> movie
> Deep Throat and two other articles that I don't recall at the moment. This
> is a foundation issue because the situation right now is effectively
> censorship of articles that some people feel do not have a place on the
> wikipedia. I know I will probably have those who disagree with me be
> notified of this discussion at some point at which point the slandering
> will
> begin and I will be called a "snitch" and possibly other more colorful
> terms
> so I ask ahead of time for this discussion to remain civil. Although I
> hate
> to burden Danny, who probably has a lot of more important things to do, he
> is the only one who speaks both Hebrew and English and could take care of
> this issue since he is obviously a person trusted by most. Anyway I think
> I've written more than enough on an issue that should be pretty
> straightforward, that is, that wikipedia is not censored.
>
> Thanks,
> Yonatan
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Review

body:
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:40:13 -0800, William Pietri
<william at scissor.com> wrote:

>benevolent
>dictatorships generally work in inverse proportion to the amount the
>dictator has to intervene. So I'd rather we take any ex-cathedra
>intervention as an opportunity to find out how the community can handle
>things next time on its own.

Yup, absolutely.

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


from_name: William Pietri

body:
K P wrote:
> I don't think credentials is the answer to the Essjay problem, because I
> think the problem was with the press, not with Wikipedia.

For me, the external problem went well beyond the press. Essjay claiming
he had a couple of doctorates was not so good, and using them in content
disputes was worse. But I think the real problem came when he claimed to
be a tenured professor, trying to make both himself and Wikipedia look
better by drawing on the social standing we give to professors. That he
did it in the press is what made the problem such a big deal externally,
but you can't blame them for reporting things people care about.

As the Chronicle of Higher Education wrote, "But the incident is clearly
damaging to Wikipedia's credibility -- especially with professors who
will now note that one of the site's most visible academics has turned
out to be a fraud."

Looking at [[User:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification]] it looks like
the proposal would try to cover situations like this, so I think
credential verification could have at least helped were it widely used.

William

--
William Pietri <william at scissor.com>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri


from_name: Sebastian Moleski

body:
On 3/8/07, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Contrary to the snide response of Gerard, this is a real issue. Articles
> which pass muster in one language should not be blocked in another one.

Can you elaborate on that? Does that not mean that the Wikipedia version
with the most relaxed rules regarding what makes a suitable article topic
gets to dictate policy for all others?

Regards,

Sebastian


from_name: Yonatan Horan

body:
Hi,

It has recently (about two months ago) come to my attention that articles on
the Hebrew Wikipedia are speedy deleted. I translated the Jenna Jameson
article from the English Wikipedia and it was very quickly speedy deleted
and I was indefinitely blocked due to being a sockpuppet of some guy (of
course no checkuser request was done). By the way, I don't particularly like
porn articles or anything of the sort; in fact, I don't believe I've ever
edited a porn article on the enwp which I'm very active on. After a few days
(during which I complained on Danny's enwp talk page and thus got the
attention of a Hebrew Wikipedia admin and later spoke on the phone with
another admin from hewp) I was unblocked. I'm guessing there have probably
been other people who just gave up after they were banned and didn't return.

The situation is basically that if a user who isn't well-known on the hewp
(someone outside of a group of about 100 users) creates such an article he
will probably be perm-banned and if anyone else does so, the article will
probably just be speedy deleted. No rule has been passed on the Hebrew
Wikipedia regarding this and even if it had been passed, it would be in
violation of WMF (?) guidelines as Wikipedia is not censored. Some claim
that a rule has been passed but many admins disagree with this. The "vote"
was passed about two years ago and had 10-20 participants. In addition to
this, the vote came at a time when the Hebrew Wikipedia was repeatedly
vandalized by a certain user and many of the voters supposedly for the
banning of porn articles referred only to this specific case (this is
supported by their comments on the page).

By the way, just so nobody corrects me, on the Hebrew Wikipedia *there are
votes* since consensus is hardly ever reached and the total needed to pass a
vote is a ridiculous 55%. Anyway, despite all the above, a few admins have
said that they will speedy delete any porn articles created on the Hebrew
Wikipedia. Currently there are a few porn articles which are about the movie
Deep Throat and two other articles that I don't recall at the moment. This
is a foundation issue because the situation right now is effectively
censorship of articles that some people feel do not have a place on the
wikipedia. I know I will probably have those who disagree with me be
notified of this discussion at some point at which point the slandering will
begin and I will be called a "snitch" and possibly other more colorful terms
so I ask ahead of time for this discussion to remain civil. Although I hate
to burden Danny, who probably has a lot of more important things to do, he
is the only one who speaks both Hebrew and English and could take care of
this issue since he is obviously a person trusted by most. Anyway I think
I've written more than enough on an issue that should be pretty
straightforward, that is, that wikipedia is not censored.

Thanks,
Yonatan


from_name: geni

body:
On 3/8/07, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
> How is putting labels on people to create external bias NPOV? Here is
> one area where our culture
> and the english wikipedia culture differ. We do not ever put labels on
> people this way. Someone's
> personal sexual behavior is private, and certainly not an open topic in
> an encyclopedia.
>

How were you planning to write about say [[Peter Tatchell]]? or pretty
much anyone listed on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_rights_activists

> Yes, it can be. What is NPOV to you may not be to me (as evidenced by my
> previous comment).

That isn't how NPOV works. NPOV is meant to be an objective standard.
--
geni


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Review

body:
On 08/03/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:

> Authority here derives from the monarch, but is vested in others, and
> any attempt to exercise power against the will of the people would
> cause problems.

Historically, *really* pushing it gets your head cut off, which means
sensible monarchs get very good at reading the public mood in both the
short and long terms.

>  It took us a couple of hundred years to get the
> balance right, and it's still changing.  But over that entire period,
> the country remained governable and tolerably well-regulated.  Is that
> so bad?
> To paraphrase a fellow Englishman, Jimbocracy is the very worst system
> of government, apart from all the others.

Indeed. We're doing things that have NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE; if we
didn't do some *really stupid* things in the process, it'd be a clear
case of not being nearly adventurous enough.

- d.


from_name: Angela

body:
On 3/8/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> This story just hit the Google News front page.  The associated press
> is reporting that Ryan was dismissed from Wikia.  Anyone know if this
> is true or not?

Ryan was not dismissed. He resigned.

Angela

--
Angela Beesley
Wikia.com


body:
On 3/8/07, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
> Or how about:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Lynde
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Sargent
>
> I guess its OK to "out" them since they are deceased now -- doesn't
> matter what impact it might
> have on their children or grandchildren? This is my point.
>

Why should it have an impact?

> Or this one is a great one. Look at the disputed tag "Categorization of
> People"
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gay_actors
>
> This is a far from NPOV in my culture as you can get. So where are the
> "Heterosexual Actors" category, or are they
> in the group "if you have not been labeled with our POV labels, you are
> hetero".

No one is interested in makeing lists of hetrosexual actors.

It isn't POV to describe say Ian McKellen as gay.

--
geni


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Accountability: bringing back a proposal I
 made	nearly 2 years ago

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 3/5/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>> The point is to make sure that people are being honest with us and with
>> the general public.
>
> I would modify the proposal: You only need to verify the credentials
> if you're in a position of trust (adminship or higher).

I would say we should start by having it be strictly optional in all
cases.  In many cases, admins will choose to do it, but for now I think
we can start with the soft approach of just offering it as an option.

Notice that in the version begin discussed in my user space, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales/Credential_Verification

There is virtually nothing that would need to change about current
policies before a start could be made.  All that is needed is some
standardization of practice.

--Jimbo


body:
I strongly resent your reply. It seems like you have some similar issues
with Pokemon articles and that's the reason you lashed out the way you did.
The reason I raised this issue on this mailing list is not because of some
misplaced sense of outrage. The incident I was talking about took place two
months ago and the only reason I mentioned it was to fully disclose any
relevant information so other people don't come on here later on and say
that the only reason I'm bringing this issue to the attention of others is
due to a vendetta against the Hebrew Wikipedia or something of the sort.
This isn't about me trying to provoke anything. It's about a certain group
of admins ignoring the fact that speedy deletion of porn articles was never
passed as a policy on hewp (and there is more than one sysop who can attest
to this). As I said previously, I don't have any particular interest in porn
and the fact that I've never edited an article that has anything to do with
this topic on the english wikipedia supports that. Ron Jeremy and Jenna
Jameson are both notable enough to have their own article on any wikipedia,
whether it be English, Hebrew or Malaysian. Attempts have been made to
resolve this issue "in-house" have failed, otherwise I wouldn't have posted
it to this mailing list. I can't find the specific meta page at the moment
but it isn't English Wikipedia only policy that wikipedia isn't censored. If
the german wikipedia decided to delete all articles regarding Nazi Germany,
etc. would you have reacted the same way? Or maybe if the Chinese Wikipedia
decided to ban all articles on the issue of democracy? I hope you rethink
your response and maybe try not to treat me as a troll when I really am not
one.

-Yonatan

On 3/8/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> When you think that people are interested in what can be perceived as a
> provocation, you are wrong. What makes you think that details about porn
> is
> of sufficient relevance to warrant an article? You have to appreciate that
> some Wikipedias are quite happy to even disallow articles about Pokomon
> characters. Now Pokomon creatures are much more educational. They are the
> staple diet of our youth.
>
> Danny is a WMF employee, I believe he has more important things to do than
> to indulge your misplaced sense of outrage.
>
> Thanks,
>    GerardM
>
> On 3/8/07, Yonatan Horan <yonatanh at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > It has recently (about two months ago) come to my attention that
> articles
> > on
> > the Hebrew Wikipedia are speedy deleted. I translated the Jenna Jameson
> > article from the English Wikipedia and it was very quickly speedy
> deleted
> > and I was indefinitely blocked due to being a sockpuppet of some guy (of
> > course no checkuser request was done). By the way, I don't particularly
> > like
> > porn articles or anything of the sort; in fact, I don't believe I've
> ever
> > edited a porn article on the enwp which I'm very active on. After a few
> > days
> > (during which I complained on Danny's enwp talk page and thus got the
> > attention of a Hebrew Wikipedia admin and later spoke on the phone with
> > another admin from hewp) I was unblocked. I'm guessing there have
> probably
> > been other people who just gave up after they were banned and didn't
> > return.
> >
> > The situation is basically that if a user who isn't well-known on the
> hewp
> > (someone outside of a group of about 100 users) creates such an article
> he
> > will probably be perm-banned and if anyone else does so, the article
> will
> > probably just be speedy deleted. No rule has been passed on the Hebrew
> > Wikipedia regarding this and even if it had been passed, it would be in
> > violation of WMF (?) guidelines as Wikipedia is not censored. Some claim
> > that a rule has been passed but many admins disagree with this. The
> "vote"
> > was passed about two years ago and had 10-20 participants. In addition
> to
> > this, the vote came at a time when the Hebrew Wikipedia was repeatedly
> > vandalized by a certain user and many of the voters supposedly for the
> > banning of porn articles referred only to this specific case (this is
> > supported by their comments on the page).
> >
> > By the way, just so nobody corrects me, on the Hebrew Wikipedia *there
> are
> > votes* since consensus is hardly ever reached and the total needed to
> pass
> > a
> > vote is a ridiculous 55%. Anyway, despite all the above, a few admins
> have
> > said that they will speedy delete any porn articles created on the
> Hebrew
> > Wikipedia. Currently there are a few porn articles which are about the
> > movie
> > Deep Throat and two other articles that I don't recall at the moment.
> This
> > is a foundation issue because the situation right now is effectively
> > censorship of articles that some people feel do not have a place on the
> > wikipedia. I know I will probably have those who disagree with me be
> > notified of this discussion at some point at which point the slandering
> > will
> > begin and I will be called a "snitch" and possibly other more colorful
> > terms
> > so I ask ahead of time for this discussion to remain civil. Although I
> > hate
> > to burden Danny, who probably has a lot of more important things to do,
> he
> > is the only one who speaks both Hebrew and English and could take care
> of
> > this issue since he is obviously a person trusted by most. Anyway I
> think
> > I've written more than enough on an issue that should be pretty
> > straightforward, that is, that wikipedia is not censored.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Yonatan
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
cohesion wrote:
> Is this for PR reasons?

PR should always be a secondary reason for doing anything.  We should do
things because they are the right thing to do for our projects and our
community, and if we do that, then the good press will follow in due course.

In this case, my primary concern is restoring a sense within the
community that we can trust each other, that we ought to trust each
other, and that we are not afraid to be open and honest with each other.

--Jimbo


body:
The question here isn't about notability. The two examples given by geni are
well notable in Israel and Hebrew-speaking culture (even those who are for
the deletion of all porn articles will say that). The problem is that the
articles aren't judged on a case-by-case basis, if they have anything to do
with porn, it is very likely that they will be very quickly speedy deleted.
You can't ban a whole subject on a wikipedia just because you don't like it.
By the way, I am well aware of what goes on on the English Wikipedia as I am
more active there than on the Hebrew one and I'm not saying the Hebrew
Wikipedia needs to allow articles on many esoteric porn actors like en but
by the same token they can't just delete articles on porn (especially not
notable subjects) without passing a vote to make this policy and without
complying with WMF guidelines.

Thanks,
Yonatan

On 3/8/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: The Cunctator [mailto:cunctator at gmail.com]
> >Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2007 02:07 PM
> >To: 'Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List'
> >Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Censorship: Speedy deletion of porn articles
>
> >Contrary to the snide response of Gerard, this is a real issue. Articles
> >which pass muster in one language should not be blocked in another one.
>
> Cultures differ, what is not notable in one culture is a serious offense
> in another.
>
> Fred
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject:
[Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Accountability: bringing back
 a	proposal I made nearly 2 years ago

body:
geni wrote:
> On 3/5/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> 1) Any user can ask for his or her professional credentials to be verified.
>>
>
>
> Creates work for office or simular that doesn't result in much benefit.

I think the process should not be related in any way to the office if
there is any way at all to avoid it.  It should not proceed through a
bottleneck of a committee or designated person.  It should be highly
distributed and networked like all successful wikipedia processes.

--Jimbo


body:
Heh, as I said previously, the block was lifted within three days as it was
clear to more than one admin that I was erroneously blocked. I wouldn't have
brought this issue to foundation-l if attempts to resolve the issue on the
Hebrew Wikipedia had succeeded. All of what you're suggesting has already
been done and different compromises were already attempted. The other thing
is that while you may not be inclined to believe what I'm saying, the
community never decided this should be policy, it's just that some admins
enforce it as if it were policy.

-Yonatan

On 3/8/07, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>
> Yonatan Horan wrote:
>
> >I strongly resent your reply. It seems like you have some similar issues
> >with Pokemon articles and that's the reason you lashed out the way you
> did.
> >The reason I raised this issue on this mailing list is not because of
> some
> >misplaced sense of outrage. The incident I was talking about took place
> two
> >months ago and the only reason I mentioned it was to fully disclose any
> >relevant information so other people don't come on here later on and say
> >that the only reason I'm bringing this issue to the attention of others
> is
> >due to a vendetta against the Hebrew Wikipedia or something of the sort.
> >This isn't about me trying to provoke anything. It's about a certain
> group
> >of admins ignoring the fact that speedy deletion of porn articles was
> never
> >passed as a policy on hewp (and there is more than one sysop who can
> attest
> >to this). As I said previously, I don't have any particular interest in
> porn
> >and the fact that I've never edited an article that has anything to do
> with
> >this topic on the english wikipedia supports that. Ron Jeremy and Jenna
> >Jameson are both notable enough to have their own article on any
> wikipedia,
> >whether it be English, Hebrew or Malaysian. Attempts have been made to
> >resolve this issue "in-house" have failed, otherwise I wouldn't have
> posted
> >it to this mailing list. I can't find the specific meta page at the
> moment
> >but it isn't English Wikipedia only policy that wikipedia isn't censored.
> If
> >the german wikipedia decided to delete all articles regarding Nazi
> Germany,
> >etc. would you have reacted the same way? Or maybe if the Chinese
> Wikipedia
> >decided to ban all articles on the issue of democracy? I hope you rethink
> >your response and maybe try not to treat me as a troll when I really am
> not
> >one.
> >
> >-Yonatan
> >
> >
> >
> Perhaps you should make these arguments to the folks running the Hebrew
> Wikipedia? How about
> posting articles about famous Hebrew porn stars? See if that flies.
> Would be a good test of what you say.
> I do respect the Hebrew Wikipedia stance on this topic and standing up
> for their culture. I have to agree
> with that community. You should take your arguments back there.
>
> Ask nicely to be let back on and see where it goes.
>
> :-)
>
> Jeff
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject:
[WikiEN-l] [Foundation-l] Accountability: bringing back
 a	proposal I made nearly 2 years ago

body:
Matthew Brown wrote:
> I am, since I occupy a position of responsibility, quite willing to
> verify my identity to the Foundation/Jimbo in private - but verifying
> other stuff is frankly not worth my scarce time and effort.

Sure, but consider this... in your position of responsibility, you
credentials are basically meaningless and I can't think of any reason
why we should care.  You got your important role in the community for
community skills as proven in practice.

That's a bit different from the case of someone who might want to list
their credentials on their user page, and who would not mind those
credentials being verified for the good of the project and as a point of
personal pride.

I think we can keep the two issues separate: knowing who people are if
they are in positions of trust is interesting and important, but quite
different in some important ways from the issue of stating credentials.

--Jimbo


body:
On 3/8/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/8/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > No one is interested in makeing lists of hetrosexual actors.
> > It isn't POV to describe say Ian McKellen as gay.
>
> So much drama.
>
> Why can't we argue about
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Autofellatio.ogg  instead?
>
Copyvio. User has no other uploads and no edits on commons or en.

--
geni


body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> The only thing that causes real problems is when people claim to have
> credentials they don't have to the press.

I don't think it is only about the press.  I think it is hurtful to the
community when people lie.  I know a lot of people whose feelings were
really hurt by the lies told in the current case, and it makes them
wonder about other people.  That's sad.

> I see no point in requiring admins who make such claims since having a
> degree in biology doesn't affect your ability to perform admin duties. -

--Jimbo


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] Review

body:
On 08/03/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:16:21 -0500, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org>
> wrote:
>
> >It's kind of vague, really.  Historically, the Arbitration Committee
> >took over the roles Jimmy previously exercised.  Informally, he
> >currently heads it (from afar, mostly), and has authority to veto its
> >decisions, appoint/remove members, etc.  Even more informally, he does
> >so in accordance with community approval (elections, the policy
> >ratification vote, etc.).  At one point Jimmy was also formally in
> >charge, but now in hierarchical terms the Foundation's Board of
> >Directors would be, with Jimmy retaining informal/customary authority
> >over some English-Wikipedia-specific processes.  Now that authority over
> >the community is mostly effective because the community tacticly
> >approves of it, so teasing out which has priority is tricky.
>
> Unless you are English, where the concept of a constitutional monarchy
> is something we've always lived with :o)  Yesterday I was riding along
> the Queen's highway.  Literally - The Mall.

Ways to get amusing reactions out of American tourists blocking the
road and not moving out of the way: start snarling about Obstructing
the Queen's Highway in the most strident tone you can muster.

> Authority here derives from the monarch, but is vested in others, and
> any attempt to exercise power against the will of the people would
> cause problems.  It took us a couple of hundred years to get the
> balance right, and it's still changing.  But over that entire period,
> the country remained governable and tolerably well-regulated.  Is that
> so bad?

I have in the past mused over the idea that the evolution of power in
Wikipedia bears a shocking resemblance to the evolution of power in a
British-style constitutional monarchy; a clear trend of slowly
devolving power and authority to others; those others selected in a
growingly democratic manner; and a heavy reliance on running matters
by The Way Things Are Done Around Here By Sensible Decent Chaps.

I'm not sure what period I'm willing to stretch the analogy as far as,
though ;-)

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


from_name: Chris Picone

subject: [WikiEN-l] yet another credential idea...

body:
Why not just have no credential stuff at all? I mean, it doesn't
matter if the writer is an expert or not (since facts have to be
verified and attributed nonetheless) and creds only hurt. Why not just
disallow use of credentials while editing? Or maybe even allow a user
to claim they have a BA in X, but not mention it editing? Just a
thought.

--Chris is me


subject: [WikiEN-l] Conservapedia

body:
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 13:01:41 -0700, "Rob Smith" <nobs03 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>The Volvo Repair Manual Glossary of English/American Autopart Equivalents
>gives one of the best insights into the differences in the language.

I've been driving Volvos for twenty years and I've never come across
it.  Mind, you don't often need a repair manual for a Volvo - none of
mine have exceeded 200,000 miles, barely run-in - so that might
account for it.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Review

body:
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 23:42:02 +0000, "Andrew Gray" <shimgray at gmail.com>
wrote:

>I have in the past mused over the idea that the evolution of power in
>Wikipedia bears a shocking resemblance to the evolution of power in a
>British-style constitutional monarchy; a clear trend of slowly
>devolving power and authority to others; those others selected in a
>growingly democratic manner; and a heavy reliance on running matters
>by The Way Things Are Done Around Here By Sensible Decent Chaps.

There's a lot to be said for it - it made the BRITONS' England what it
is today.  Oh, wait...

This you must read: http://theweekly.co.uk/

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


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2007-03-09

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

This is MediaWiki version 1.10alpha (r20281).

Reading tests from "maintenance/parserTests.txt"...
Reading tests from "extensions/Cite/citeParserTests.txt"...
Reading tests from "extensions/Poem/poemParserTests.txt"...

   3 previously failing test(s) now PASSING! :)
      * Blank ref followed by ref with content  [Fixed between 08-Mar-2007 08:17:23, 1.10alpha (r20223) and 09-Mar-2007 08:15:17, 1.10alpha (r20281)]
      * Regression: non-blank ref "0" followed by ref with content  [Fixed between 08-Mar-2007 08:17:23, 1.10alpha (r20223) and 09-Mar-2007 08:15:17, 1.10alpha (r20281)]
      * Regression sanity check: non-blank ref "1" followed by ref with content  [Fixed between 08-Mar-2007 08:17:23, 1.10alpha (r20223) and 09-Mar-2007 08:15:17, 1.10alpha (r20281)]

  18 still FAILING test(s) :(
      * URL-encoding in URL functions (single parameter)  [Has never passed]
      * URL-encoding in URL functions (multiple parameters)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)  [Has never passed]
      * BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Mixing markup for italics and bold  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: dt/dd/dl test  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Images with the "|" character in the comment  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, without trailing slash or name.  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, with lots of extra trailing slashes.  [Has never passed]

Passed 493 of 511 tests (96.48%)... 18 tests failed!


from_name: Bryan Derksen

body:
William Pietri wrote:
> As the Chronicle of Higher Education wrote, "But the incident is clearly
> damaging to Wikipedia's credibility -- especially with professors who
> will now note that one of the site's most visible academics has turned
> out to be a fraud."

The best counter for this perception problem, IMO, is not to convince
people to trust Wikipedia's content because the people working on it are
certified in some way - "expert" contributors is no guarantee of a good
product. Rather, we should simply try to show that Wikipedia's _content_
is objectively good. The Nature study comparing article quality to
Britannica is a good example, credentials and authorship never entered
into it.


body:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: The Cunctator [mailto:cunctator at gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2007 02:48 PM
>To: fredbaud at waterwiki.info, 'Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List'
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Censorship: Speedy deletion of porn articles
>
>On 3/8/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: The Cunctator [mailto:cunctator at gmail.com]
>> >Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2007 02:07 PM
>> >To: 'Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List'
>> >Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Censorship: Speedy deletion of porn articles
>>
>> >Contrary to the snide response of Gerard, this is a real issue. Articles
>> >which pass muster in one language should not be blocked in another one.
>>
>> Cultures differ, what is not notable in one culture is a serious offense
>> in another.
>
>
>
>Since when are the different language Wikipedias supposed to defend
>nationalistic or cultural norms?
>
>You seem to imply that the NPOV varies from language to language.
>
>And here I was all this time thinking that it's a neutral point of view, not
>a culturally biased point of view.
>
>We really need the single user login.
>

There is no way we can impose European culture on the rest of the world. I live it, but...

Fred


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
On 3/8/07, Yonatan Horan <yonatanh at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It has recently (about two months ago) come to my attention that articles on
> the Hebrew Wikipedia are speedy deleted. I translated the Jenna Jameson
> article from the English Wikipedia and it was very quickly speedy deleted
> and I was indefinitely blocked due to being a sockpuppet of some guy (of
> course no checkuser request was done). By the way, I don't particularly like
> porn articles or anything of the sort; in fact, I don't believe I've ever
> edited a porn article on the enwp which I'm very active on.

I'm personally one of the most committed anti-censorship advocates you
will find. As an English Wikipedia community member, I have repeatedly
argued for inclusion of controversial materials, from Abu Ghraib
photos to quality illustrations of genitals and sexual practices.

That said, getting too involved in the content practices of a
particular Wikipedia is also dangerous -- beyond some basic principle,
it can disrupt a community, and lead to forks and tension. I do
believe one of these principles should be: "Wikipedia is not censored
for the protection of minors." That will not change the fact that some
will simply use "notability" as an excuse to eliminate content they
find prurient.

I think we should enshrine principles such as "NPOV" and "not
censored" - which are generally agreed upon - and leave it up to
community members to defend these principles. It is possible that it
could make sense to have a third instance, a sort of Wikimedia-wide
elected Arbitration Committee, to deal with long standing conflicts
that cannot be resolved locally.

--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic


body:
On 09/03/07, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> Mark Williamson wrote:
>
> > Because you are a racist :-) You probably even deny the indigenous
> > status of the Ainu.
>
> I would hope that's not the reason... if we were to block people for
> holding objectionable opinions (even exceedingly objectionable ones), I
> could submit a very long list of names of people to be blocked,
> including many admins!

To paraphrase Harry Truman:

"[They] blocked him for continually trolling, not for being a dumb
son-of-a-bitch - which he was, but that's not against the law for
people on the internet. If it was, three quarters of them would be in
jail"
--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


body:
On 3/8/07, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Many editors of huge quality are not willing to provide their real name.
> Why would they consider sending this information to a totally anonymous
> email address handled by volunteers, who are not necessarily identified
> under their real name and have signed no confidentiality agreement them ?

I think it's clear that we're evolving towards a completely voluntary
system here. That is fine, but in return, I think it is reasonable
that such a system will operate using all available tools, including
OTRS. There can be no reasonable argument, in my view, that it would
be improper or a "drain on volunteer resources" for us to set up an
OTRS queue to help with credentials verification. If people want to
join the queue, they will; if they don't, they will not -- the system
is voluntary and optional in the first place, and if it does not
scale, it will simply not be adopted. OTRS is just a tool here, it
does not imply any official role of the Wikimedia Foundation.

I think we can come up with a guideline that involves user templates,
OTRS-based verification, and possibly even web of trust style
mechanisms, and then we'll figure out if users adopt it or not. IMHO
the very fact that a subset of users would follow such a guideline
would help to instill a healthy sense of skepticism towards statements
of credentials.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic


from_name: phoebe ayers

body:
On 3/8/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> William Pietri wrote:
> > As the Chronicle of Higher Education wrote, "But the incident is clearly
> > damaging to Wikipedia's credibility -- especially with professors who
> > will now note that one of the site's most visible academics has turned
> > out to be a fraud."
>
> The best counter for this perception problem, IMO, is not to convince
> people to trust Wikipedia's content because the people working on it are
> certified in some way - "expert" contributors is no guarantee of a good
> product. Rather, we should simply try to show that Wikipedia's _content_
> is objectively good. The Nature study comparing article quality to
> Britannica is a good example, credentials and authorship never entered
> into it.

Except for the subtext of being amazed that non-experts could write an
accurate encyclopedia :) Re: the Chronicle quote, I think there's possibly a
certain personal level of discreditation, or guilt-by-association that goes
beyond content accuracy, going on as well -- if I really am a professor, why
state that when anyone else can as well (and clearly get away with it pretty
easily)? Why be associated with that kind of nonsense? Why be subject to
possible distrust in the future (are you *really* a professor, or do you
just say you are?) Professorship is hard-won in most cases, and most people
don't take kindly to impersonation.

Credentials might help with this. However, KP's point about not all areas of
expertise being subject to black & white credentialing is well taken. I can
verify certain points of my education pretty easily, but those aren't
necessarily the areas I edit in. And none of my prior degrees or hobbies
cover "wikipedia editing and policies" which, let's face it, is really what
Essjay was an expert in. There's no credentialing needed for that except a
strong edit history.

As I see it, the question is what credentialing would help with, and what
its main goal would be. Questions to ask include:
* is or should honesty about yourself, on general principle (i.e., outside
of content disputes etc) be:
a) not necessary, just nice if it happens
b) a necessary thing in order to contribute
c) helpful in making *you* more trustworthy for any job, i.e. positions of
trust on the wiki

* is or should stating verified credentials about yourself (whether they're
"I'm an academic librarian" or "I'm a world-renowned didgeridoo player"):
a) helpful in making your edits more trustworthy, in general
b) helpful in making your edits more trustworthy, in specific (i.e. on the
didgeridoo articles)
c) helpful in making *you* more trustworthy in general, i.e. for positions
of trust
d) none of these, it's just a nice social convention, helpful for finding
like-minded friends

Again, I can prove I'm an expert in some content areas, but not in others.
Whether I should do so depends entirely, in my opinion, on what the goal of
attempting to garner more trust is. Bear in mind, beyond knowing and having
met many Wikipedians personally, I do state my real name on my userpage, and
a quick search will tell you where I work and what I do for a living. All of
this was done deliberately: I believe in making editing Wikipedia a
professional-level endeavor that I am happy to associate my name with.
However, I'm aware that I seem to be in the minority among contributors with
this, and indeed it took a long time before I started using my real name on
my userpage. The prevailing culture on en:wp is very much one of
pseudonymity and anonymity; this is the much larger hurdle to change if more
real-life trustworthiness is needed from contributors.

-- phoebe

p.s. like essjay, I have an OTRS account. Does that mean that I could verify
my own credentials under Erik's plan?


from_name: stvrtg

body:
On 3/8/07, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> For the record, I am totally opposed to such a model.

Hm. I think you and I are in the minority.

But the Foundation should be entirely kept away from this. There is NO
> way our rare employees should have to deal with editors credentials.
> Doing so would on top further fuel the belief that we are in charge,
> putting us possibly at risk legally speaking.

The above reasoning aside, I think the real reason is that the Foundation
can't do this.
Keeping in mind that the Essjay situation was twofold: an internal issue
which deals with
community trust, which in turn became an avenue for outside criticism toward
Wikipedia
and [[open culture]] in general.

The Foundation being an institutional entity, it naturally will respond to
external and internal
pressures in institutional ways. Sadly, this is a case where I think you in
the Foundation must feel
entirely pinched - both by the mob outside and the mob inside. The benefits
of the many heads
paradigm is of course belied by the limits of the few headed Foundation.

This would entirely tip the very concept of our community. Trust built

not upon someone's credentials but upon what the person does.

The critics don't often understand this basic point. Or they don't care.
They are critics after all. They dislike
Wikipedia's success, its model, its community, its very existence. The would
love to see Wikipedia die by its own hand during some vain attempt to please
the critics or to live up to its own hype.

What counts is not the credential of the person, but giving a source for
> a controversial content. This is not because someone has a validated phd
> that he should be more reliable than another.

A reactionary response or not, some change in process is nevertheless
forthcoming. We can all sense that.
My sense though is that the right approach to dealing with this is to
develop some greater editorial oversight, rather than personnel oversight.
I'm mediating several cases this month, almost all of which involve some
misuse of the RS concept to exclude a POV, based of course on some
misunderstanding of or disregard for NPOV.

-Stevertigo


body:
On 3/8/07, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:

For me, the external problem went well beyond the press. Essjay claiming
> he had a couple of doctorates was not so good, and using them in content
> disputes was worse.

Would somebody please provide a source for the claim that he used his fake
credentials to "strongarm people" or to influence "content disputes?"
I could simply repeat my belief that this assertion is far overstated, but
instead Ill
simply demand that people actually support their accusations with evidence.
The citations Ive seen have been damning from a credentialist standpoint,
but
I have yet to see evidence that he used his fake credentials in the context
of actual disputes.
In contrast, over the years haven't we seen plenty of crackpots with claimed
credentials abuse
these in a way which has been much more disruptive?

But I think the real problem came when he claimed to
> be a tenured professor, trying to make both himself and Wikipedia look
> better by drawing on the social standing we give to professors. That he
> did it in the press is what made the problem such a big deal externally,
> but you can't blame them for reporting things people care about.

The press didnt take it as a story in which Essjay misrepresented himself to
the press.
They ran it as a story in which Essjay's wiki credentials were somehow based
on false
academic credentials. The fact is that we don't base wiki credentials on
academic ones,
and it is precisely this reason why Wikipedia has slightly more than 24 peer
reviewed articles.

As the Chronicle of Higher Education wrote, "But the incident is clearly
> damaging to Wikipedia's credibility -- especially with professors who
> will now note that one of the site's most visible academics has turned
> out to be a fraud."

This is nonsense.  Essjay's standing was never based on his academics, it
was based on his
work and community involvement. Wikipedia's credibility doesn't rest on
credentials, but on
its content. Which suffers not thanks to its many anonymous and
knowledgeable contributors, credentialed or otherwise.

Looking at [[User:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification]] it looks like
> the proposal would try to cover situations like this, so I think
> credential verification could have at least helped were it widely used.

Im with Anthere on this one, its just unimaginative reactionism.

-Stevertigo


from_name: Jeremy Cushman

subject: [Wikitech-l] Approved BOT Code

body:
On 3/8/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/9/07, Dan Collins <en.wp.st47 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > WP:AWB is also used, though that may be closed source.
>
> I think it went open source when the original author moved on to other
> things. It's worked out pretty well.
>
> Steve

I don't think AWB was ever non-open source (although it may have been at the
very beginning for a couple of weeks).  That's probably the best bet if you
want to run a bot with little programming experience.

You can also try dotnetwikibot, which is in c#.

--Mets501


subject: [Wikitech-l] Approved BOT Code

body:
>
> You can also try dotnetwikibot, which is in c#.
>
> --Mets501
>

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Creating_a_bot