from_name: charles matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
"Jimmy Wales" wrote

>But we should be very extreme in our caution
> that a Wikipedia entry not be used to *drive* the very notability upon
> which the entry is supposed to *depend*.

Couple this with the well-known debate here 'notability isn't policy'.  We
get a complex picture.

'Encyclopedic interest' should encompass much of what 'it is in the public
interest to know'; but it need not include all that 'the public are
interested in knowing'.  This distinction is exactly what gets slurred in
the public interest defence of 'tabloid journalism', with its slippage into
prurience.

I think tabloid journalism in its pejorative sense is always going to fall
foul of our living persons guidelines.  If not, then the guidelines need
tightening up, in the direction of coming down harder on sensationalism.  We
are not here to sell newspapers.

Pedians may be a rather pre-filtered collection of people; but effectively
we do operate a policy on 'human interest'. At AfD an article found
interesting by enough will survive, even if the topic is somewhat obscure.

We really do need a tweaked version of the 'notability' discussion, where it
is laid out that:-

- we have an encyclopedia to write, and there is going to be some cut-off to
what we take to be reference information;
- we have a media-style duty, which is not to suppress informative things
within the reach of NPOV-Verifiability, when these are matters the public
should have documented for them;
- we are also an ethical and voluntary organisation, supported in effect as
a public service of global reach, and have at all times to be mindful of
that.

Charles


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
Andrew Lih wrote:
> Results 1 - 10 of about 161,000 for "brian peppers". (0.05 seconds)
>
> Results 1 - 10 of about 154,000 for "Stan Shebs". (0.03 seconds)
>
> Let's cut the ridiculousness of this Google testing track.

"jimmy wales" - 36,500,000
"elvis presley" - 14,400,000

it's pretty silly

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################


from_name: Peter Mackay

subject: [WikiEN-l] Welcome to Wikipedia tagline WAS: Wikipedia's destiny

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Jimmy Wales

> geni wrote:
> > Wikipedia's internal politics long ago reached the point
> where it is
> > posible to be a perfectaly good editor and still upset the wrong
> > people.
>
> Can you give an example?

[Raises hand]

You know I'm a good editor - my recent contributions are exemplary if sparse
- but there are folk who'd shoot me on sight.

Peter (Skyring)


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Banned

body:
On 2/24/06, Kat ** <uniquegeek at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I moved and got this account December 8, 2005. I keep on getting banned
> because a vandal previously had this IP. My ISP's tech tells me I get a
> new
> IP every couple days. They lie. I told them they lie. They say it is not
> necessary to force me to a new IP (because this will be done
> automatically).
> I have tried releasing/renewing my IP on my machine, this does not force a
> new IP. I am pretty sure every time I edit, I am logged in. account:
> geekybroad, error: You were blocked by Hall Monitor Reason given:
> returning
> vandal, long term vandalism, warned repeatedly, *12th block*; have your
> system administrator contact me (see our blocking policy), IP address
> wikipedia says I have: 24.66.94.140, IP address whatismpip.com says I
> have:
> 24.79.228.12. PLEASE DO NOT BAN ME SIMPLY BECAUSE I HAVE EDITED A PAGE!
> Take
> a look at my contributions, I am obviously not a vandal. --geeky?road.
> meow?
> 23:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
>
> The last two times I have been banned, I saw nothing that could have
> caused
> this.  I know the last time for sure, I had just made a simple typo edit
> on
> two different pages. WHAM! Banned.
>
> I've emailed Hall Monitor about the last two incidents but have not
> received
> replies.  I am still currently banned.
>
> Please, please please tell me what to do to stop this from happening
> again.
> This has happened a few times, and I am getting really frustrated.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geekybroad
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
Geekybroad,
It's not you Hall Monitor banned, but someone using the same IP address as
you do and vandalising articles
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.66.94.140)

Unfortunately, you get blocked because your ISP issues you the same IP every
once in awhile. This IP has been blocked for the 12th time  because it keeps
vandalising articles. The only way you can avoid being banned too is get
another IP address or contact your ISP abuse address internet.abuse at sjrb.ca (or
forward any conversation you had with them to Hall Monitor).

Sincerely,
Mgm


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of userpages

body:
On 2/24/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/24/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> > In any case, you didn't answer my question.  You said that killing the
> > user namespace would "instantly kill all the notes I keep on my wiki
> > projects. And all the links I
> > keep for easy access so I don't have to search to find stuff."  But
> > why can't your notes and links be kept in the project namespace?
> > Surely doing that wouldn't cause thousands of random personal notes in
> > the project space randomly edited by anyone who comes by.  We're just
> > talking about your notes.  They aren't random, are they?
>
>
> If anyone could edit the notes I am keeping they lose their value.

I guess you're one of the minority of users that has a protected user
page?  If so, I guess you have a point, though I thought even user
pages were supposed to be editable by all, in theory.

> They're structured the way they are because it's helpful to me. If anyone
> could edit them they soon become random because others don't necessarily see
> the logic behind the structure I'm using.
>
> Mgm

Most user pages are already editable by anyone.  Yet somehow people
manage to not step all over each other.  Funny how that works.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of userpages

body:
On 2/24/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/24/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> > I guess I just don't see what the functionality of userspace is in the
> > first place, if not to be used by the user as an expression of
> > themselves.
> >
> > I also think what's more likely to happen, if people *really* insist
> > on keeping their notes separate from everyone elses, is you'll see
> > things like [[Wikipedia:Bob's notes]], not notes thrown into the
> > article space.  Someone doing what you claim you would do would
> > quickly be banned.
> >
> > Anthony
>
>
> And if we get stuff like [[Wikipedia:Anthony's notes]], [[Wikipedia:Bob's
> notes]] and [[Wikipedia:MacGyverMagic's notes]] it would basically result in
> a massive shift of userspace material to the Wikipedia space. Userspaces can
> be useful in creating a community feeling as well as keeping notes. It's not
> to express yourself, that's not what Wikipedia is about. It's to create an
> identity for yourself so people feel comfortable working with you and for
> keeing project related material.
>
> As soon as you state you are "against the right to bear firearms in the
> United States", you're going to get people on the defensive, especially when
> you start to edit gun-related articles. The same thing goes for "pro- or
> anti-abortion" and loads of other subjects. It's okay to show your interest
> in the subject, but as soon as you show your views you are using Wikipedia
> as a soapbox which it's not (see WP:NOT).
>

See, this is where I think saying that you're against the "right" to
bear firearms in the US *is* creating an identity for yourself.  I
also think it facilitates working with people on gun-related articles,
if indeed you are the type of person who's capable of working with
others on gun-related articles in the first place.

Oh well.  Whatever.  I've had my say.  I don't really care enough to
talk about it further.

Anthony


from_name: Mark Gallagher

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
G'day Mark,

> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
>>That is certainly one question we should ask.
>>
>>Another question is: does human dignity matter at all?
>
> That's a bit of a loaded question, and doesn't directly address the
> issue actually at hand.
>
> The more specific issue facing us is: To what extent ought we to censor
> Wikipedia out of concern for human dignity?

You're right, that *is* a better question (although I think you're being
a bit mischeivous with "censor", there).

I'm a bit concerned that sometimes Wikipedians have a habit of writing
articles or including information, not because it's the right thing to
do, but just basically as a way of saying "you can't tell US what to do,
mate" whenever the subject of an article complains.  In our rush to send
a big "FUCK YOU" to any censors, real or imagined, we can ignore what's
editorially or morally appropriate.  As the man who has to deal with the
angry 'phone calls and possible press issues afterwards, it's quite
clear why Jimbo might object to that sort of thing.

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.0.0/268 - Release Date: 23/02/2006


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Trivia" sections in articles

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
>
>
>>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>They look ugly and unprofessional.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Have you forgotten that most of us are not being paid to edit?  That
>>>makes looking unprofessional quite natural. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>So, you're suggesting we should leave the vandalism *in* because we're
>>not being paid to remove it?
>>
>
> Vandalism??  Please review the subject line; it's about trivia.   Your
> reference to vandalism is a non-sequitur.
>

Vandalism is ugly and unprofessional, and we're not being paid to edit,
but we fix it anyway. Why should "Trivia" sections in articles be any
different?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 558 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060224/865e807c/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Username block (was Admin Abuse)

body:
Peter Mackay wrote:
>>From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
>>[mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Guettarda
>
>
>
>>On 2/23/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Doesn't the autoblocker only kick in when one tries to edit?
>>
>>
>>Yep, my mistake.  But they still won't be able to edit with
>>the new username
>
>
> It also comes up when you click on a redlink.
>

Clicking on a redlink /is/ trying to edit.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 558 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060224/c42d739b/attachment.pgp


body:
Peter Mackay wrote:
>>From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
>>[mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Delaney
>
>
>
>>On 2/23/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Which, according to [[Wikipedia:Username]], they shouldn't.
>>
>>Supposedly
>>
>>>we're supposed to warn them at least once, and only take
>>
>>action (like
>>
>>>changing their name for them) after a reasonable delay.
>>
>>
>>I don't see much point in warning them since it's not a
>>behavior they can stop. An inappropriate username is an
>>inappropriate username. In this case, warning just seems to
>>be more work for the administrator when the result is the
>>same either way.
>
>
> Warn them so they can change their username or at least be aware of why they
> were blocked. Otherwise they come here seeking an explanation for the random
> brutality.
>

How about we change {{usernameblock}} to the effect of:

"This notice was placed at ~~~~~; you have 24 hours to pick a new name,
at which point your account will be renamed."

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 558 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060224/61d8f892/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Newest admin abuse on Wikipedia: Voter intimidation

body:
Mark Gallagher wrote:
<snip>
> I think us rogue admins
<snip>

The correct term is "rouge"... :)

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 558 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060224/53e3d199/attachment.pgp


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:

>Actually moral absolutes do have a role. But sending you straight to
>hell is not a good option. Next time, if the only notable thing about
>a person is that they are pitiful, consider whether that is notable
>enough to balance the damage it does to Wikipedia to include it.
>
>
Imagine the damage that would be done to Wikipedia if it became known
that our authors' personal ethical beliefs overtly and purposely
influenced the information we provide.

-Mark


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of userpages

body:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 10:13:19 -0500, you wrote:

>In any case, you didn't answer my question.  You said that killing the
>user namespace would "instantly kill all the notes I keep on my wiki
>projects. And all the links I
>keep for easy access so I don't have to search to find stuff."  But
>why can't your notes and links be kept in the project namespace?

What was that saying about "a difference which makes no difference"?
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [WikiEN-l] Userboxes: A rational proposal

body:
geni wrote:
> On 2/23/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2/23/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I agree up, down, and sideways that factionalism is very, very
>>>bad for the project.  But given that it has begun to take root,
>>>and especially when one of the factional splits is between those
>>>for and against userboxes, it's not at all clear that rampant,
>>>heavyhanded deletion of userboxes (which are, after all, merely
>>>a symptom of the real problem) will automatically make things
>>>any better.
>>
>>Agree.  We should start out with statements of what the community
>>wants - "please don't create or use ideological userboxes, they upset
>>people".
>
>
> The evidence that the community wants that is somewhat patchy
>

The evidence is overwhelmingly that the community (whoever the hell they
are) wants a free webhost and "blog buttons" [1] to plaster all over them.

[1] http://gtmcknight.com/buttons/

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 558 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060224/28b79508/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of userpages

body:
On 2/24/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/24/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > Most user pages are already editable by anyone.  Yet somehow people
> > manage to not step all over each other.  Funny how that works.
> >
> > Anthony
>
>
> That's the whole idea why I like userpages - somehow people don't trip each
> other up. Mine is not protected, yet few feel the urge to edit it. On the
> few rare occasions someone did, it was to fix some typos or to inform me an
> idea I had listed had been written. (And they were all kind enough to inform
> me) The fact it's a userpage which "belongs" to someone makes people a lot
> more considerate when editing someone's personal notes and sandboxes.
>
> I don't see the same thing happening in any other namespace.
>
> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't like to go and suggest
> extreme ideas when less invasive things can be tried first. No doubt there's
> going to be people with different views.
>
> Mgm

Sounds good to me.  I wasn't even really suggesting any extreme ideas.
 If I were to make a suggestion it would involve more of a gradual
shift away from the concept of ownership of notes.  My comments
started out as a question, which was only half-rhetorical.  But then I
got on the defensive.  And to some extent I guess the question was
answered.  Some people keep notes on such disparate subjects that the
very subjects themselves are forgotten.

Thanks for the relatively civil discussion.

Anthony


from_name: Mark Wagner

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/23/06, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
> Delirium wrote:
>
> >  Have you
> >actually tried searching Google for "Brian Peppers"?  Information on him
> >is quite readily available, quite apart from any obscure sex-offender
> >registry.  Wikipedia is not even the highest-ranked result (snopes.com
> >is), and there are *161,000* hits.
> >
> I only see 92,000, while "Stan Shebs" gets 115,000. So how is it
> that he's notable enough to have an article and I'm not? I even
> have actual accomplishments to describe, albeit no bizarre
> physical features to snicker at (or at least I haven't noticed
> any pointing and giggling :-) ).

<snicker>Lookit his nose!</snicker>

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


body:
Peter Mackay wrote:
>>From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
>>[mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Alphax
>>(Wikipedia email)
>
>
>
>>Peter Mackay wrote:
>>
>>>>From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
>>>>[mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Guettarda
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 2/23/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Doesn't the autoblocker only kick in when one tries to edit?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yep, my mistake.  But they still won't be able to edit with the new
>>>>username
>>>
>>>
>>>It also comes up when you click on a redlink.
>>>
>>
>>Clicking on a redlink /is/ trying to edit.
>
>
> No it's not. I've clicked on redlinks with no intention of editing. For one
> thing, it's an easy way to get to a new editor's empty user page so as to
> get that "User Contributions" link.

Install [[WP:POPUP]].

> For a new editor, they might click on it
> not know ing it leads to an empty article. For a more experienced editor, it
> might be a mistake, or possibly the redlink is not easily seen in a
> particular skin.
>

I can't help you with that one.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 558 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060224/fee51698/attachment.pgp


body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Alphax
> (Wikipedia email)

> Peter Mackay wrote:
> >>From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> >>[mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Guettarda
> >
> >
> >
> >>On 2/23/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Doesn't the autoblocker only kick in when one tries to edit?
> >>
> >>
> >>Yep, my mistake.  But they still won't be able to edit with the new
> >>username
> >
> >
> > It also comes up when you click on a redlink.
> >
>
> Clicking on a redlink /is/ trying to edit.

No it's not. I've clicked on redlinks with no intention of editing. For one
thing, it's an easy way to get to a new editor's empty user page so as to
get that "User Contributions" link. For a new editor, they might click on it
not know ing it leads to an empty article. For a more experienced editor, it
might be a mistake, or possibly the redlink is not easily seen in a
particular skin.

Peter (Skyring)


body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Alphax
> (Wikipedia email)
>
> Peter Mackay wrote:
> >>From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> >>[mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Delaney

> >>I don't see much point in warning them since it's not a
> behavior they
> >>can stop. An inappropriate username is an inappropriate
> username. In
> >>this case, warning just seems to be more work for the administrator
> >>when the result is the same either way.
> >
> >
> > Warn them so they can change their username or at least be
> aware of why they
> > were blocked. Otherwise they come here seeking an
> explanation for the random
> > brutality.
> >
>
> How about we change {{usernameblock}} to the effect of:
>
> "This notice was placed at ~~~~~; you have 24 hours to pick a
> new name,
> at which point your account will be renamed."

Good, but the editor also needs to know why the username was deemed
inappropriate, otherwise it will merely confuse them.

Also, if they don't log in again for a couple of days, then they will find
their account has inexplicably disappeared. Such a warning should be coupled
with two email notices:
1. Wording as above, plus a reason.
2. Notification that the account has been renamed and the new account name
is xxxxx

Peter (Skyring)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Delirium
> I, personally, believe correct, verifiable information on a
> subject someone might be looking for is nearly always a net
> positive, and that withholding such information is almost
> always a net negative.
> Publicly-available information is a cat that can't be put
> back into a bag, and refusing to provide it in a neutral,
> verifiable manner does nothing but: 1) increase the
> prominence of misinformation from alternative sources; and 2)
> increase inequality in access to information.

Some public information, such as contained in registers of sex offenders or
sale prices on house transfers, is generally relatively difficult to find
and search. Sure, it's public info, but it's not readily available.

Having a Wikipedia article - a notorious Wikipedia article - is a different
thing. For one thing, it will tend to rank high on a Google search, whereas
that Ohio register doesn't seem to be at all prominent. For another, the
mere fact that there *is* an article when so many more notorious sex
offenders go unmentioned here sends a message, and not one that I think
Wikipedia should be sending.

The reason the subject of the article was in WP is not because of his
crime(s), but because of his appearance. To my mind, by including the
article, we are not presenting a professional face to the world.

And saying that the subject is now notorious and therefore notable is a
circular argument.

Peter (Skyring)


body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Alphax
> (Wikipedia email)
> Sent: Friday, 24 February 2006 16:08
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Username block (was Admin Abuse)
>
> Peter Mackay wrote:

> >>>It also comes up when you click on a redlink.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Clicking on a redlink /is/ trying to edit.
> >
> > No it's not. I've clicked on redlinks with no intention of editing.
> > For one thing, it's an easy way to get to a new editor's empty user
> > page so as to get that "User Contributions" link.
>
> Install [[WP:POPUP]].

Yeah, I've done that. Handy gear. I'm not sure when [[WP:POPUP]] became
available, but I wasn't aware of it until recently.

I'll agree with you that most of the time, clicking on a redlink IS
intentionally editing, at least for an editor who knows what they are about.
But not ALL the time, and there's enough pedant in me to pick that nit.

Peter (Skyring)


from_name: SCZenz

subject: [WikiEN-l] A total loss of perspective

body:
On 2/24/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> This quote from Danny is highly entertaining (from [[Talk:Harry Reid]]):
>
> " It will be included in the article, but it will be included with the
> proper perspective, so that someone reading the article about Harry
> Reid 100 years from now will get a comprehensive overview of the man's
> life and career, and not just speculation or the headlines of February
> 2006. "
>
> So far as I know, articles on Wikipedia continue to get edited on a
> regular basis; i.e. some changes may happen to the article in the next
> 100 years (though the way Jimbo and Danny are acting, maybe it
> won't!).
>
> So I'm not sure why Danny is worried about trying to get the article
> perfectly "right" for a mythical 100-year-from-now viewer.
>
> Or does he have a time machine he's not letting the rest of us know about?
>
> This note: "The page is protected again. Reid's people did not
> threaten legal action. I will not go into the reasons here."
>
> was also pretty unfathomably rude.
>
> So much for respect for fellow editors. I guess some people are just
> more equal than others.

Um, well...  Some people work full-time for the Foundation, and deal
with the big-picture issues that all of us volunteer editors don't
have to worry about.


list: foundation-l

from_name: Alison Wheeler

subject: [Foundation-l] Fate of "Simple English"

body:
I've often thought that the 'simple English' was the right product aimed
at the wrong market.

Instead of targetting it at people how have English as a second language
(who, quite rightly, want to learn English "properly"; long words and all)
why not consider it as targetted at that other group who *need* simple
English ...

Children.

Simple English is, I would have thought, perfect for pre-schoolers and
under-12s generally as it sets out to explain concepts in simpler language
and as that means a reduced vocabulary then let us target it at those who
already daily use that reduced vocabulary.

Alison


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Fate of "Simple English"


from_name: Andrew Lih

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/24/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> > From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> > [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Delirium
> >
> > Stan Shebs wrote:
> >
> > >I only see 92,000, while "Stan Shebs" gets 115,000. So how
> > is it that
> > >he's notable enough to have an article and I'm not? I even
> > have actual
> > >accomplishments to describe, albeit no bizarre physical features to
> > >snicker at (or at least I haven't noticed any pointing and
> > giggling :-)
> > >).
> > >
> > >
> > In any case, it's in the multiple tens of thousands, so I
> > think we can agree that the original Wikipedia article writer
> > didn't dig up Brian Peppers from the obscurity of the Ohio
> > sex offenders registry.
>
> Nevertheless, that's the only source we have. Everything else merely
> references it or comments on it.
>
> > As for why you don't have an article, I would've thought that
> > is fairly obvious.  Unless you're famous in some area I don't
> > know about, it would seem not very many people have commented
> > publicly about you.
>
> 115 000 hits, Mark. That's more than the chap with the face.
>
> > If they have, or if you do something
> > that causes a few thousands of people to write about you,
> > then I should think you ought to have a Wikipedia article.
>
> 115 000 hits, Mark. That's more than the chap with the face. Start writing.

Results 1 - 10 of about 161,000 for "brian peppers". (0.05 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 154,000 for "Stan Shebs". (0.03 seconds)

Let's cut the ridiculousness of this Google testing track.

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Delirium
> Sent: Friday, 24 February 2006 16:55
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny
>
> Peter Mackay wrote:
>
> >Some public information, such as contained in registers of sex
> >offenders or sale prices on house transfers, is generally relatively
> >difficult to find and search. Sure, it's public info, but
> it's not readily available.
> >
> >Having a Wikipedia article - a notorious Wikipedia article - is a
> >different thing. For one thing, it will tend to rank high on
> a Google
> >search, whereas that Ohio register doesn't seem to be at all
> prominent.
> >
>
> Are you at all familiar with the subject we're discussing?
> Have you actually tried searching Google for "Brian Peppers"?

Your tone leaves a lttle to be desired, but yes, I know what we are talking
about and yes, I Googled him before posting.

>  Information on him is quite readily available, quite apart
> from any obscure sex-offender registry.  Wikipedia is not
> even the highest-ranked result (snopes.com is), and there are
> *161,000* hits.  It's not as if Wikipedia pulled some obscure
> sex offender out of a registry and catapulted him to
> notoriety---he was catapulted to notoriety by fark.com,
> somethingawful.com, ytmnd.com, and various other high-traffic
> places on the internet, and we just reported that fact.

I'm well aware of this, but it's immaterial. There's a lot of stuff on the
Internet, but we don't use the fact that information is available or even
prominent on the Internet as the overarching criterion for inclusion.

> >The reason the subject of the article was in WP is not
> because of his
> >crime(s), but because of his appearance. To my mind, by
> including the
> >article, we are not presenting a professional face to the world.
> >
> >
> Neither of those is the reason.  The subject of the article
> is in WP for the same reason [[en:Star Wars kid]] is: because
> he gained notoriety as the result of an internet fad.

With all due respect, this is tosh. He's notorious because of his face.
Saying he's notorious for any other reason is evading the point.

> >And saying that the subject is now notorious and therefore
> notable is a
> >circular argument.
> >
> >
> It's not circular at all.  If Wikipedia had made him notable,
> that would be circular.

I think we'll have to disagree on this. Having a Wikipedia article - a
notorious Wikipedia article - makes a person even more notorious. We're part
of the process, even if you think we have no impact.

>  However, he became notable through
> no action of our own, and now we're documenting it, like we
> document everything people might look for information on.

Let them look for it on Snopes then. I'm with Jimbo on this one. We don't
need to assist in demonising people. Let's have some standards, please.

Peter (Skyring)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
geni wrote:
> Those figures were messed with by jimbo haveing his name at the top of
> every single wikipedia page.

Indeed.  My mother pointed this out to me when the phenomenon was at or
near the peak -- I hit 120 million there for a bit.

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################


body:
Ben Yates wrote:
> Wikipedia is not paper -- in a print encyclopedia, there's a limit on
> the total information volume, so any trivia would push out something
> more important; here, the contraints are easy navigability,
> readability, etc.  I'm afraid I'm a bit baffled as to why /additional/
> information at the end of an article upsets people so much, as long as
> it doesn't make the rest of the article less useful.  If you don't
> like trivia sections, don't read them.
>

The problem is not so much the fact that they exist as that the name
"trivia" is meaningless. I mean, if this information is so "trivial",
why bother including it? It should be "miscellaneous information".

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 558 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060224/91e932a6/attachment.pgp


from_name: Ben Yates

body:
Useful and readable in the context of a summary, of course, and of a
place for information that doesn't have another home (like
wikisource).

On 2/24/06, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
> Ben Yates wrote:
>
> >There are still contraints, but they're contraints of readability and
> >usefulness, not shipping weight.
> >
> >
> It's certainly useful to have all of Abraham Lincoln's speeches compiled
> on one page. Formatted properly, it would probably be readable too.
> Doesn't make it encyclopedic.
>
> John
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Ben Yates
Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Trivia and popular culture sections

body:
That's fair, but it doesn't seem hard to find a source for this issue.

On 2/24/06, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
> Ben Yates wrote:
>
> >It's still useful; you just have to use your head more -- you have to
> >think about what the odds might be that a 1st-tier celebrity is named
> >after the song, and how many other people might be named after it
> >because of that, for example.  It might not be a perfectly
> >encapsulated summary of the spike in "Jude" names, complete with SVG
> >charts (and a control group showing no similar spike in "Sharona"
> >babies in the early '80s) but it'll never grow into that if the
> >reference is removed off the bat.
> >
> >
> Without sources it is [[wikipedia:original research]] and inadmissible.
>
> John
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Ben Yates
Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Mark Williamson

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] RFC: Principles of mass content adding on small
	Wikipedias

body:
What I wonder about TM is, how does it work with languages with
different structures?

It's quite obvious TM works well for Russian, Italian, Spanish,
French, German, other languages of similar structure. I heard it also
works for Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Arabic, Farsi, Hebrew as well.

So my main questions are:

1) Can it handle languages which don't separate words in writing?
Examples are Thai, Lao, Japanese, Chinese, and a number of smaller
languages.

2) Can it handle languages of all typological classifications? So far
I have seen it works well for isolating (such as Chinese, Vietnamese)
and inflecting languages (such as Russian, Polish, Latin), but what
about polysynthetic languages (such as Inuktitut, Turkish, Georgian,
Adyghe, Abkhaz, Mohawk)? I would imagine it would be more difficult
for these languages. For example, Western Greenlandic
"Aliikusersuillammassuaanerartassagaluarpaalli." means "However, they
will say that he is a great entertainer, but..." (for other long words
like this, just look at the greenlandic wikipedia, kl.wp).

3) Can it mass-process huge amounts of content quickly, to be reviewed
later by humans?

Mark

On 30/01/06, Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it> wrote:
> Hi, please allow me to add my 2 cts here :-)
>
> >
> > Danny mentioned in his response that a bot could do great work. Henna
> > did remark that Wikidata could make a difference. Milos mentions that
> > data may need localisation.. I want to remind you about an e-mail that
> > Sabine Cretella send to the lists. Sabine is really active in the
> > Neapolitan Wikipedia. A project much younger than the Swahili
> > wikipedia but already with 4336 articles. The secret of this success
> > is among other things that Sabine uses professional tools to translate
> > into the Neapolitan language. OmegaT, the software Sabine uses, is GPL
> > software and is what is called a CAT or Computer Aided Translation
> > tool. This allows for an efficient translation and is /not /the same
> > as Automated Translation.
>
> I am using OmegaT for things I write in Neapolitan - for the simple
> fact, that during translation I get terminology proposed, already
> translated or similar sentences are proposed etc. This has nothing to do
> with Machine Translation. What is re-used here is a glossary and the
> translations previously done.
>
> The cities of Campania were uploaded with the pywikipediabot
> (pagefromfile.py). What is lacking here: a documentation of the single
> bots and how they work - so more people could learn how to use them
> since installing python and running the bot is not soooo difficult.
>
> Back to translations with OmegaT: the advantage for languages where we
> have a community that very often lacks in having a stable Internet
> access are obvious: translations can be planned, people who can
> translate, but who maybe would not be good writers, can translate
> offline and create contents that way. Another person can care about
> uploading the translated articles, if necessary. Once there is something
> written others, who are more likely to be writors than translators can
> start editing and adapting, improving etc.
>
> We have very different people around and not many of them are real good
> writers. I myself can write about certain stuff, but that is more
> marketing text than encyclopaedic text - so for the "translation" is the
> easiest way to do things.
>
> Steps to translate articles now:
> Copy the Text from the original language wiki in a file. (This can be
> one page or 50 pages - on file per wiki page or one file with several
> wiki pages in there ... it does not really matter)
> Create the project with OmegaT (well it must be on your computer first
> and you need java on your computer as well)
> Load the file to be translated
> Copy the glossaries you have for that language in the glossary directory.
> Copy eventual Translation Memories from previous projects in the
> directory for TMs
> Reload the project
> Translate
> Save to target
> Copy and paste the translated text to the wiki
>
> Now there are some more features that can help you - this is just to
> "see" how it basically works ... then like any application it has more
> features that can help you to easen work.
>
> People who are interested in using OmegaT for Wikipedia translations
> should show up. I know that is is being used for contents on scn
> wikipedia as well. Maybe it would make sense to create a work-group for
> this tool and exchange our TM's or upload them to Commons or another
> common place. Of course the Translation memory could also be stored on a
> wiki, but that is than another step ahead.
>
> >
> > When we have Wikidata ready for prime time, we will be able to store
> > structured data about one subject. This is not a full solution as many
> > of the words used in the presentation need to be translated, maybe
> > even localised to make sense in another language. I for instance
> > always have to think if 9/11 is the ninth of November or the eleventh
> > of September; I do know of it for the event. In order to present data,
> > labels have to be translated and data may have to be localised. The
> > WiktionaryZ project will help with the labels and standards like the
> > CLDR are what define how the localisation is to be done.
> >
> > We are making steady progress with WiktionaryZ, the first alpha demo
> > project is at epov.org/wd-gemet/index.php/Main_Page (a read only
> > project for now). There is a proposal for a project at
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_for_standards that intends to help
> > us where the standards prove to be not good enough. As Sabine is part
> > of the team behind OmegaT, it is being researched how OmegaT can read
> > and write directly to a Mediawiki project.
>
> Well, see above, but even if it cannot do that now: it is very helpful
> to work on it locally and offline. The only thing I'd say is important
> is a note on the wikipedia/wikibooks whatever project of the target
> language that this article is being translated by XYZ.
>
> >
> > One other aspect that is needed in new project is commitment. People
> > who express their support for a new language project should see this
> > as an indication of /their /commitment and not as an expression of
> > their opinion. When people start to work on a new project it is
> > important that like on the Neapolitan wikipedia, there are people who
> > are knowledgeable and willing to help the newbies, I hope that the IRC
> > channel #wikipedia-bootcamp can serve a role for this as well.
>
> Hmmm ... Danke f?r die Blumen :-) but really there are so many projects
> that do good :-) very often people just don't know about existing tools
> or whatever and often these could be the things that make the difference.
>
> I always like to take the African languages as an example, because they
> somewhat have the most difficult position:
> People there often do not have the same possibilities we have... well:
> even if students don't have a stable Internet connection they could well
> have huge advantages of offline versions on a CD or versions that can be
> copied on a hd or wherever you can easily store and re-write data for a
> pc. I know that often they do not even have computers like we have.
> There is that 100 usd computer for schools ... well this one would be a
> good approach also for school kids in Europe ... from the first class
> onwards (thinking about kids here where I live) ... but let's go back to
> "offline use and work"
>
> Well considering those regions where "online" is a problem students and
> capable people who would like to see their language present in wikipedia
> could become pages to translate - even a non-native speaker could care
> about the upload of the pages. And there should be one person who
> speaks/writes enough of that language to add pictures, sound etc. Then
> the ready article can go back to them, and they can distribute it among
> people.
>
> I know, now you say Wikipedia is an "online encyclopaedia" ... well, it
> might be ... but does this mean that people who do not have stable
> online access and who cannot afford it are second class and therefore
> should not get information in their language? Why should they not be
> allowed to work on such contents, read it, distribute it ...
>
> Wikipedia is about giving people encyclopaedic information in their
> language - well I see its scope much wider than that - but basically
> that's it ... so we should give it to them, right?
>
> OmegaT runs on Windows, Linux, OSX etc. so why not take up that possibility?
>
> There would be so much more to write about these things .... well let's
> take this thread as a good start :-) and let us develop strategies and
> work together.
>
> Best,
>
> Sabine
>
> *****and there is my never ending wish ... that day of at least 48 hours
> ...*****
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
> http://mail.yahoo.it
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin


from_name: The Cunctator

body:
ObSheesh:

During a guest appearance on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" (1992),
Jay Leno asked him where his name came from, and he replied that he
was named after the Beatles song "Hey Jude." [15 June 2001]

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000179/bio

What makes Wikipedia great is that it doesn't make the arbitrary and
elitist distinction between high and low culture, but democratically
includes information that its audience thinks is of interest.

People should be *VERY HESITANT* about removing information that
others have added. Editing for style, content, readability, utility,
grammar, flow, etc. are all critical but taking knowledge out of
Wikipedia just because you find it uninteresting or unimportant is
arrogant, rude, and destructive to the project.

I love the Wikipedia trivia sections and I love the attitude that says
"if it can be integrated into the text, it doesn't need to be
mentioned as trivia", which I don't even see as a compromise.

Sourcing is critical but the "I'm going to kill it if it isn't
sourced" is a philosophy that should be wielded with UTMOST care.


body:
Bar the barbarians!

On 2/23/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 21:06:00 +1100, you wrote:
>
> >Most of the editorbase, I
> >suggest, regard Halo 2 (whatever that might be) as more relevant to them
> >than Zanzibar the island.
>
> Ain't that the truth.  We have more biographical detail on most porn
> "stars" than on some major figures in classical music.
> Guy (JzG)
> --
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] A total loss of perspective

body:
On 2/24/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/25/06, SCZenz <sczenz at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Um, well...  Some people work full-time for the Foundation, and deal
> > with the big-picture issues that all of us volunteer editors don't
> > have to worry about.
>
> You mean people complaining about articles about themselves? Been
> there done that. Never had to resort to protection. With the exception
> of the newsmax incident things mostly worked out OK.

I don't know the story behind what's going on with the Harry Reid
article.  Maybe you do,  but from my perspective if an article is
getting attention from the Foundation then there might be a reason,
and giving them a few days to handle it isn't unreasonable.  Anyway,
there are almost a million other articles to edit!

Every time the Foundation intervenes on an article because they've
received a complaint, there are many cries of overreaction.  I think
the perspective people are missing is that Jimbo getting a complaint
personally is different from a user dealing with a complaint on the
General Complaints page--because he runs the Foundation and it is
responsible for Wikipedia's content.  It's easy to forget that
Wikipedia is *about* everything, and so it can seem big compared to
the rest of the world, but actually it's very small; we are subject to
legal action, bad publicity, and other inconveniences from complaining
article subjects.  Because average users don't have much perspective
on how bad those inconveniences might be, or what the remedies might
be, it is necessarily a Foundation issue to deal with complaints they
have received.

(I'm assuming here the Foundation even got a complaints from someone
about that article--I literally know nothing about what's going on.  I
just don't see how it could hurt to give them the benefit of the
doubt.)

SCZenz


subject: [WikiEN-l] A total loss of perspective

body:
This quote from Danny is highly entertaining (from [[Talk:Harry Reid]]):

" It will be included in the article, but it will be included with the
proper perspective, so that someone reading the article about Harry
Reid 100 years from now will get a comprehensive overview of the man's
life and career, and not just speculation or the headlines of February
2006. "

So far as I know, articles on Wikipedia continue to get edited on a
regular basis; i.e. some changes may happen to the article in the next
100 years (though the way Jimbo and Danny are acting, maybe it
won't!).

So I'm not sure why Danny is worried about trying to get the article
perfectly "right" for a mythical 100-year-from-now viewer.

Or does he have a time machine he's not letting the rest of us know about?

This note: "The page is protected again. Reid's people did not
threaten legal action. I will not go into the reasons here."

was also pretty unfathomably rude.

So much for respect for fellow editors. I guess some people are just
more equal than others.


body:
On 2/24/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 18:24:37 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >People should be *VERY HESITANT* about removing information that
> >others have added. Editing for style, content, readability, utility,
> >grammar, flow, etc. are all critical but taking knowledge out of
> >Wikipedia just because you find it uninteresting or unimportant is
> >arrogant, rude, and destructive to the project.
>
> I hope that CyclePat *never* reads this :-)
>
> Of course we should think carefully before removing stuff other people
> care about, but when the trivia starts to overwhelm the encyclopaedic
> content, or individual trivial items start to outweigh individual
> significant items, or when a particular regional perspective comes to
> overwhelm the perspective of another region which may be more relevant
> or significant, it's time to think long and hard about what the
> article say *as a whole*.

That presupposes that it's obvious what is "trivia" and what is "encyclopaedic".

Considering that encyclopedic means "encompassing everything", that
can be pretty difficult.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Delirium
>
> Stan Shebs wrote:
>
> >I only see 92,000, while "Stan Shebs" gets 115,000. So how
> is it that
> >he's notable enough to have an article and I'm not? I even
> have actual
> >accomplishments to describe, albeit no bizarre physical features to
> >snicker at (or at least I haven't noticed any pointing and
> giggling :-)
> >).
> >
> >
> In any case, it's in the multiple tens of thousands, so I
> think we can agree that the original Wikipedia article writer
> didn't dig up Brian Peppers from the obscurity of the Ohio
> sex offenders registry.

Nevertheless, that's the only source we have. Everything else merely
references it or comments on it.

> As for why you don't have an article, I would've thought that
> is fairly obvious.  Unless you're famous in some area I don't
> know about, it would seem not very many people have commented
> publicly about you.

115 000 hits, Mark. That's more than the chap with the face.

> If they have, or if you do something
> that causes a few thousands of people to write about you,
> then I should think you ought to have a Wikipedia article.

115 000 hits, Mark. That's more than the chap with the face. Start writing.

Pete, deservedly obscure


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of userpages

body:
On 2/24/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> In any case, you didn't answer my question.  You said that killing the
> user namespace would "instantly kill all the notes I keep on my wiki
> projects. And all the links I
> keep for easy access so I don't have to search to find stuff."  But
> why can't your notes and links be kept in the project namespace?
> Surely doing that wouldn't cause thousands of random personal notes in
> the project space randomly edited by anyone who comes by.  We're just
> talking about your notes.  They aren't random, are they?

If anyone could edit the notes I am keeping they lose their value.
They're structured the way they are because it's helpful to me. If anyone
could edit them they soon become random because others don't necessarily see
the logic behind the structure I'm using.

Mgm


from_name: Baba Jobu

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

references:
<43FEB5A1.3020504@hackish.org>
	<20060224075755.IDWZ14751.omta05ps.mx.bigpond.com@skyringstudy>
	<2ed171fb0602240036t49e3cb9bybda78fa8b44efb4b@mail.gmail.com>
	<43FF586C.7070704@wikia.com>

body:
Oh, you're just showing off! ;-)

But well, yes, because both you and Elvis Presley are hugely notable.
161,000 doesn't put you at the Olympian heights of a Wales or a Presley, but
it's solid memedom, I'd say.

On 2/24/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
> Andrew Lih wrote:
> > Results 1 - 10 of about 161,000 for "brian peppers". (0.05 seconds)
> >
> > Results 1 - 10 of about 154,000 for "Stan Shebs". (0.03 seconds)
> >
> > Let's cut the ridiculousness of this Google testing track.
>
> "jimmy wales" - 36,500,000
> "elvis presley" - 14,400,000
>
> it's pretty silly
>
>
>
>
> --
> #######################################################################
> #    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
> #    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
> #######################################################################
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of userpages

body:
On 2/24/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> I guess I just don't see what the functionality of userspace is in the
> first place, if not to be used by the user as an expression of
> themselves.
>
> I also think what's more likely to happen, if people *really* insist
> on keeping their notes separate from everyone elses, is you'll see
> things like [[Wikipedia:Bob's notes]], not notes thrown into the
> article space.  Someone doing what you claim you would do would
> quickly be banned.
>
> Anthony

And if we get stuff like [[Wikipedia:Anthony's notes]], [[Wikipedia:Bob's
notes]] and [[Wikipedia:MacGyverMagic's notes]] it would basically result in
a massive shift of userspace material to the Wikipedia space. Userspaces can
be useful in creating a community feeling as well as keeping notes. It's not
to express yourself, that's not what Wikipedia is about. It's to create an
identity for yourself so people feel comfortable working with you and for
keeing project related material.

As soon as you state you are "against the right to bear firearms in the
United States", you're going to get people on the defensive, especially when
you start to edit gun-related articles. The same thing goes for "pro- or
anti-abortion" and loads of other subjects. It's okay to show your interest
in the subject, but as soon as you show your views you are using Wikipedia
as a soapbox which it's not (see WP:NOT).

Userspaces work fine. It's the abuse (divisive
userboxes/advertising/personal attacks) that needs addressing. You don't
need to kill an entire namespace to address some problems that crop up in
there.

We don't delete articles for attracting vandalism. We shouldn't delete
userpages for attracting problematic behavior from just a few of the people
either.

Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Banned

body:
Are we talking new AOL here?

On 2/24/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> MGM wrote:
>
> >It's not you Hall Monitor banned, but someone using the same IP address
> as
> >you do and vandalising articles
> >(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.66.94.140)
> >Unfortunately, you get blocked because your ISP issues you the same IP
> every
> >once in awhile. This IP has been blocked for the 12th time  because it
> keeps
> >vandalising articles. The only way you can avoid being banned too is get
> >another IP address or contact your ISP abuse address internet.abuse
> at sjrb.ca (or
> >forward any conversation you had with them to Hall Monitor).
>
>
> Do the whois - this is a shaw.ca proxy. Shaw Cable route all their
> customers' web access through transparent proxies - hence GeekyBroad
> seeing a different IP for her PC than for the editing: Wikipedia sees
> only the proxy address.
>
> As a wide-ranging ISP proxy, this IP should *never* be blocked for
> more than very short times.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: charles matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
"Jimmy Wales" wrote

> "jimmy wales" - 36,500,000
> "elvis presley" - 14,400,000
>
> it's pretty silly

The King is Dead - rumours to the contrary - but Long Live the (God)King.

However if you search for the exact phrase, "Charles Matthews'' beats "Jimbo
Wales" at Google.  Put the actual Coronation on hold.

Charles


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Delirium

> Peter Mackay wrote:
>
> >>As for why you don't have an article, I would've thought that is
> >>fairly obvious.  Unless you're famous in some area I don't
> know about,
> >>it would seem not very many people have commented publicly
> about you.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >115 000 hits, Mark. That's more than the chap with the face.
> >
> >
> Did you look at any of them?  Note in my quote I said "not
> very many people have commented about you", which empirically
> appears to be true:
> Almost all of those hits are either for other people named
> Stan Shebs, or to posts written by our Stan Shebs himself
> (e.g. on Wikipedia or on mailing lists).

And how many of the tens of thousands of Google hits for "Brian Peppers"
have you personally checked?

> Are you being deliberately obtuse?

No.

Peter (Skyring)


from_name: Steve Block

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> The problem is it's horribly subjective. Check [[WP:WEB]]'s recent
> edit history and the attempts of arbitrary notability bar partisans to
> make it policy by assertion, despite strong opposition.

Sorry, could I ask you to clarify or expand on that comment.  I
advertised my rewrite of [[WP:WEB]] across wikipedia, at the pump and on
the CENT template.  There was no strong opposition.  And I am certainly
not an arbitrary notability bar partisan, take a look at [[Wikipedia
talk:Notability]], namely
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANotability&diff=33013997&oldid=32579717
and my comments to Radiant at
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARadiant%21&diff=35188519&oldid=35166261

Fair play, I don't mind discussion, but let's be balanced in our
presentation of situations.

Steve Block

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 24/02/06


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of userpages

body:
On 2/24/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> On 2/24/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/24/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > In any case, you didn't answer my question.  You said that killing the
> > > user namespace would "instantly kill all the notes I keep on my wiki
> > > projects. And all the links I
> > > keep for easy access so I don't have to search to find stuff."  But
> > > why can't your notes and links be kept in the project namespace?
> > > Surely doing that wouldn't cause thousands of random personal notes in
> > > the project space randomly edited by anyone who comes by.  We're just
> > > talking about your notes.  They aren't random, are they?
> >
> >
> > If anyone could edit the notes I am keeping they lose their value.
>
> I guess you're one of the minority of users that has a protected user
> page?  If so, I guess you have a point, though I thought even user
> pages were supposed to be editable by all, in theory.
>
> > They're structured the way they are because it's helpful to me. If
> anyone
> > could edit them they soon become random because others don't necessarily
> see
> > the logic behind the structure I'm using.
> >
> > Mgm
>
> Most user pages are already editable by anyone.  Yet somehow people
> manage to not step all over each other.  Funny how that works.
>
> Anthony

That's the whole idea why I like userpages - somehow people don't trip each
other up. Mine is not protected, yet few feel the urge to edit it. On the
few rare occasions someone did, it was to fix some typos or to inform me an
idea I had listed had been written. (And they were all kind enough to inform
me) The fact it's a userpage which "belongs" to someone makes people a lot
more considerate when editing someone's personal notes and sandboxes.

I don't see the same thing happening in any other namespace.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't like to go and suggest
extreme ideas when less invasive things can be tried first. No doubt there's
going to be people with different views.

Mgm


from_name: Peter Mackay

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Lih
> Sent: Friday, 24 February 2006 19:37
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny
>
> On 2/24/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> > > From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> > > [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Delirium
> > >
> > > Stan Shebs wrote:
> > >
> > > >I only see 92,000, while "Stan Shebs" gets 115,000. So how
> > > is it that
> > > >he's notable enough to have an article and I'm not? I even
> > > have actual
> > > >accomplishments to describe, albeit no bizarre physical
> features to
> > > >snicker at (or at least I haven't noticed any pointing and
> > > giggling :-)
> > > >).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > In any case, it's in the multiple tens of thousands, so I
> think we
> > > can agree that the original Wikipedia article writer
> didn't dig up
> > > Brian Peppers from the obscurity of the Ohio sex
> offenders registry.
> >
> > Nevertheless, that's the only source we have. Everything
> else merely
> > references it or comments on it.
> >
> > > As for why you don't have an article, I would've thought that is
> > > fairly obvious.  Unless you're famous in some area I don't know
> > > about, it would seem not very many people have commented publicly
> > > about you.
> >
> > 115 000 hits, Mark. That's more than the chap with the face.
> >
> > > If they have, or if you do something that causes a few
> thousands of
> > > people to write about you, then I should think you ought
> to have a
> > > Wikipedia article.
> >
> > 115 000 hits, Mark. That's more than the chap with the
> face. Start writing.
>
>
> Results 1 - 10 of about 161,000 for "brian peppers". (0.05 seconds)
>
> Results 1 - 10 of about 154,000 for "Stan Shebs". (0.03 seconds)
>
> Let's cut the ridiculousness of this Google testing track.

I agree. We don't need any Google hits at all if a subject is truly worth
inclusion, and we might get millions for something that's never going to
make it in.

Results 1 - 10 of about 95,700 for "Brian Peppers". (0.31 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 115,000 for "Stan Shebs". (0.18 seconds)

Seems to vary to a remarkable degree. For what that's worth. As I noted
earlier, we're not going to check every one of those hits.

Peter (Skyring)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Delirium
> Sent: Friday, 24 February 2006 20:23
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny
>
> Peter Mackay wrote:
>
> >>Did you look at any of them?  Note in my quote I said "not
> very many
> >>people have commented about you", which empirically appears to be
> >>true:
> >>Almost all of those hits are either for other people named
> Stan Shebs,
> >>or to posts written by our Stan Shebs himself (e.g. on
> Wikipedia or on
> >>mailing lists).
> >>
> >>
> >
> >And how many of the tens of thousands of Google hits for
> "Brian Peppers"
> >have you personally checked?
> >
> >
> I checked the first 50 or so results of both, and
> spot-checked later pages.

Thanks.

> Oh, and here's an in-print reference to Brian Peppers as a
> noteworthy internet fad:
>
> Lichman, John. "'Teh interweb' -- It offers more than porn."
> _Washington Square News_.  February 3, 2006.  (Also available
> online at
> http://www.nyunews.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/02/03/43e31129220d1)

Nobody is disputing that there are lots of references on the net. That's not
the point. In fact, at the moment, the article is a redirect to [[Internet
phenomenon]] of which BP has been removed by User:UninvitedCompany as "not
notable". I think he's probably worth a brief mention there, but not as a
standalone article.

Do you see why an article is inappropriate?

Peter (Skyring)


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/24/06, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> --- Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
> > Andrew Lih wrote:
> > > Results 1 - 10 of about 161,000 for "brian peppers". (0.05 seconds)
> > >
> > > Results 1 - 10 of about 154,000 for "Stan Shebs". (0.03 seconds)
> > >
> > > Let's cut the ridiculousness of this Google testing track.
> >
> > "jimmy wales" - 36,500,000
> > "elvis presley" - 14,400,000
> >
> > it's pretty silly
>
> Interesting. I get
>
> 40,300,000 for "Jimmy Wales"
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Jimmy+Wales%22&btnG=Search
>
> and
> 42,700,000 for "Jesus Christ"
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Jesus+Christ%22&btnG=Search
>
> -- mav
>
> PS - IIRC, the same search a month ago had over 50,000,000 hits for "Jimmy Wales" and about
> 43,000,000 for "Jesus Christ". So you ain't more popular than Jesus anymore. :)

Those figures were messed with by jimbo haveing his name at the top of
every single wikipedia page.

--
geni


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of userpages

body:
On 2/24/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the relatively civil discussion.
>
> Anthony

Thanks to you too. I much prefer civil discussions over deletion
wheelwarring.


from_name: Nicholas Moreau

body:
I've filled out a form on MySpace, mentioning the violation.

Nick Moreau
Zanimum
WMF-CC

On 2/24/06, foundation-l-request at wikimedia.org <
foundation-l-request at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 04:27:50 -0500
> From: "- Essjay -" <essjaywiki at gmail.com>
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Myspace group using our logo
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
>         <3f56c95e0602230127x770303e5ta7f299317b2bb59c at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> To whomever takes care of violations of our copyrights:
>
> http://home.myspace.com/
>
> They are currently using a vandalized copy of an unofficial derivative;
> right in the center is the copyrighted Wikipedia logo. Could we get a nice
> note to myspace.com asking them to take care of the problem?
>
> On the subject of that given
> derivative<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:CVU2.5.PNG>,
> if someone with Foundation authority would say so, it could be deleted....
>
> --
> Essjay
> -----
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
> Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
> http://www.wikipedia.org/
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Myspace group using our logo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/24/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> geni wrote:
> > Those figures were messed with by jimbo haveing his name at the top of
> > every single wikipedia page.
>
> Indeed.  My mother pointed this out to me when the phenomenon was at or
> near the peak -- I hit 120 million there for a bit.
>
>

And seceeded in devualing the sumeries provived by google yahoo and
alta vista (posebly other search engins but I got board).

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of userpages

body:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:22:47 +0100, you wrote:

>And if we get stuff like [[Wikipedia:Anthony's notes]], [[Wikipedia:Bob's
>notes]] and [[Wikipedia:MacGyverMagic's notes]] it would basically result in
>a massive shift of userspace material to the Wikipedia space

Which was pretty much my point: the problem doesn't go away, it just
moves somewhere else.  Only somewhere it's less obviously not part of
the project....
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of userpages

body:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:34:08 -0500, you wrote:

>See, this is where I think saying that you're against the "right" to
>bear firearms in the US *is* creating an identity for yourself.  I
>also think it facilitates working with people on gun-related articles,
>if indeed you are the type of person who's capable of working with
>others on gun-related articles in the first place.

*fire*arms?  Now I understand!  I thought it was about the
constitutional right to wear sleeveless vests....
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: John Lee

body:
Stan Shebs wrote:

>Joshua Griisser wrote:
>
>
>
>>I'm more disgusted by all of this than I can possibly
>>express.
>>
>>
>>
>Yawn, I've become more bored by all this than I can possibly
>express.
>
>I'd be interested in the opinions of someone who's written 100
>featured articles, however.
>
>Stan
>
>
In that case everyone should be listening to Lord Emsworth, me, or
Worldtraveller. (Nobody has a hundred FAs yet, but I'm quite confident
between the three of us you can scrape together more than a hundred FAs.) :p

John


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

>On 2/24/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
>
>
>>The more specific issue facing us is: To what extent ought we to censor
>>Wikipedia out of concern for human dignity?
>>
>>
>>
>
>Quite a lot, I should hope.
>
>We're in the business of education, not titillation.  We should feel
>comfortable in drawing the line pretty sharply on the side of
>education.  If a private individual, which this man certainly is,
>suffers indignity because of our actions, then we should definitely
>spend some time reconsidering our actions.
>
>A year seems about right.  if the article really is so necessary to
>Wikipedia that we should disregard or set aside such concerns.  Or
>five years.  Let's not rush in making such a difficult and possibly
>very damaging decision.
>
>
God, I have so damn had it with all this Brian Peppers crap flooding the
list. Since it's aggravating me to no end (and the masochist that I am,
I can't pull away from my mail client), I think I'll chip in: Wikipedia
covers a lot of private individuals who don't want to be covered and
feel their dignity is being violated. Remember [[Gary Brolsma]]? The
[[Star Wars Kid]]? Or even the recent case of that deceased German
hacker whose parents got a court order banning the German Wikipedia from
publishing his name? With the internet, a lot of people are getting
their fifteen minutes of fame -- and in some cases, a lot more than
that. I'm not about to embroil myself in the dispute over whether
Peppers is sufficiently notable for inclusion, but I find the excuse
used by some that "being funny-looking does not make one notable" is
missing the point -- being made fun of by some of the most popular
websites on the internet and getting media coverage for this *can* be
considered notability.

Having said that, I don't care whether [[Brian Peppers]] stays or goes,
although as one might be able to tell, I'm leaning in favour of keeping.
But it makes no real difference to me. Keep or delete him, whatever --
just don't use logical fallacies or faulty reasoning to support your
decision.

John


body:
Ben Yates wrote:

>Wikipedia is not paper -- in a print encyclopedia, there's a limit on
>the total information volume, so any trivia would push out something
>more important; here, the contraints are easy navigability,
>readability, etc.  I'm afraid I'm a bit baffled as to why /additional/
>information at the end of an article upsets people so much, as long as
>it doesn't make the rest of the article less useful.  If you don't
>like trivia sections, don't read them.
>
>
>
Because we're an encyclopedia. This is like saying "I'm a bit baffled as
to why including the full text of all of [[Abraham Lincoln]]'s speeches
at the end of his article upsets people so much". (A bit exaggerated of
course, but nevertheless true.) WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of
information.

John


body:
Ben Yates wrote:

>"[[Jude Law]] was named after the song"
>
>That's a useful bit of information, though: it illustrates how
>incredibly influential the song was, and the sway the Beatles had over
>a british generation.
>
>
Not if you don't have a source to back up the latter assertion as well
as the assertion that Law's naming was because of this cultural
influence (instead of, say, his mother hearing the song on the radio
just before going into labour).

John


body:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 18:24:37 -0500, you wrote:

>People should be *VERY HESITANT* about removing information that
>others have added. Editing for style, content, readability, utility,
>grammar, flow, etc. are all critical but taking knowledge out of
>Wikipedia just because you find it uninteresting or unimportant is
>arrogant, rude, and destructive to the project.

I hope that CyclePat *never* reads this :-)

Of course we should think carefully before removing stuff other people
care about, but when the trivia starts to overwhelm the encyclopaedic
content, or individual trivial items start to outweigh individual
significant items, or when a particular regional perspective comes to
overwhelm the perspective of another region which may be more relevant
or significant, it's time to think long and hard about what the
article say *as a whole*.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


body:
Steve Summit wrote:

>Alphax wrote:
>
>
>>The evidence is overwhelmingly that the community (whoever the hell they
>>are) wants a free webhost and "blog buttons" [1] to plaster all over them.
>>
>>
>
>Can you cite that evidence?
>
>I was going to edit WP_NOT to say "Wikipedia is not a blog", but
>that page is official policy and I ought to make sure a change
>reflects consensus before I make it.  Where's the right place to
>seek that consensus?  (And I do mean the right place to seek an
>accurate consensus, not necessarily just one that agrees with me.)
>
>
Standard practice is to centralise discussion on the talk page of the
policy being created/amended, and then link to the discussion from
places like [[WP:VP]] and the mailing list.

John


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 10:41:36 +1100, you wrote:

>Or googlenotable, at any rate. I suspect that there are a lot of Christians
>with limited Internet access, and if you crowded them all into an arena and
>asked for a show of hands as to who knew of Jimmy Wales, you would get no
>more than two, maybe three.

Nah, Gastrich has spammed them all now to vote for alumni of his
favourite unaccredited bible college ;-)
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


body:
Ben Yates wrote:

>It's still useful; you just have to use your head more -- you have to
>think about what the odds might be that a 1st-tier celebrity is named
>after the song, and how many other people might be named after it
>because of that, for example.  It might not be a perfectly
>encapsulated summary of the spike in "Jude" names, complete with SVG
>charts (and a control group showing no similar spike in "Sharona"
>babies in the early '80s) but it'll never grow into that if the
>reference is removed off the bat.
>
>
Without sources it is [[wikipedia:original research]] and inadmissible.

John


list: wikitech-l

from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-02-25

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

Running test BUG 361: URL within URL, not bracketed... FAILED!
Running test Bug 2702: Mismatched <i> and <a> tags are invalid... FAILED!
Running test A table with no data.... FAILED!
Running test A table with nothing but a caption... FAILED!
Running test Link containing "#<" and "#>" % as a hex sequences... FAILED!
Running test Template with thumb image (wiht link in description)... FAILED!
Running test Link to image page... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A ISBN with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A <math> with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 561: {{/Subpage}}... FAILED!
Running test Simple category... FAILED!
Running test Section headings with TOC... FAILED!
Running test Media link with nasty text... FAILED!
Running test Bug 2095: link with pipe and three closing brackets... FAILED!
Running test Sanitizer: Validating the contents of the id attribute (bug 4515)... FAILED!

Passed 270 of 285 tests (94.74%) FAILED!


body:
Ben Yates wrote:

>There are still contraints, but they're contraints of readability and
>usefulness, not shipping weight.
>
>
It's certainly useful to have all of Abraham Lincoln's speeches compiled
on one page. Formatted properly, it would probably be readable too.
Doesn't make it encyclopedic.

John


subject: [WikiEN-l] A total loss of perspective

body:
On 2/25/06, SCZenz <sczenz at gmail.com> wrote:
> Um, well...  Some people work full-time for the Foundation, and deal
> with the big-picture issues that all of us volunteer editors don't
> have to worry about.

You mean people complaining about articles about themselves? Been
there done that. Never had to resort to protection. With the exception
of the newsmax incident things mostly worked out OK.

--
geni


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/24/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> Actually moral absolutes do have a role. But sending you straight to
> hell is not a good option.

Wikipedia Review?  Been there.  It's boring and it smells of wet string.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/25/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/24/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> > Actually moral absolutes do have a role. But sending you straight to
> > hell is not a good option.
>
> Wikipedia Review?  Been there.  It's boring and it smells of wet string.

No being condemed to sort out the all the abuse of fair use and other
parts of copyright law on wikipedia.
--
geni


from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] RFC: Principles of mass content adding on small
 Wikipedias

body:
Hi Mark,

>What I wonder about TM is, how does it work with languages with
>different structures?
>
>It's quite obvious TM works well for Russian, Italian, Spanish,
>French, German, other languages of similar structure. I heard it also
>works for Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Arabic, Farsi, Hebrew as well.
>
>So my main questions are:
>
>1) Can it handle languages which don't separate words in writing?
>Examples are Thai, Lao, Japanese, Chinese, and a number of smaller
>languages.
>
>
Yes - there are translators using Thai, Japanese and Chinese within
OmegaT - we also have people in the development team that work at least
with one of these languages.

>2) Can it handle languages of all typological classifications? So far
>I have seen it works well for isolating (such as Chinese, Vietnamese)
>and inflecting languages (such as Russian, Polish, Latin), but what
>about polysynthetic languages (such as Inuktitut, Turkish, Georgian,
>Adyghe, Abkhaz, Mohawk)? I would imagine it would be more difficult
>for these languages. For example, Western Greenlandic
>"Aliikusersuillammassuaanerartassagaluarpaalli." means "However, they
>will say that he is a great entertainer, but..." (for other long words
>like this, just look at the greenlandic wikipedia, kl.wp).
>
>
Well within OmegaT you have UTF-8 usage - so most languages are
supported, for some we might have to try out, others might require
special solutions. Basically all that is UTF-8 should not create problems.

>3) Can it mass-process huge amounts of content quickly, to be reviewed
>later by humans?
>
>
No - when Talking about OmegaT wer are not talking about machine
translation, but computer assisted translation - that means a human
translator re-uses translation memories from other projects, exchanged
TMs etc. While translating the glossary entries are checked and OmegaT
shows you the matching entries in a separate window. Should sentences be
equal to former translated ones or similar, according to your settings
within the software you can have it just proposed in a separate window
or OmegaT can overwrite the sentence to be translated with the full or
partial match sentence.

One feature I would very much like to see is assemble from portions, but
this will be only at discussion after having it connected to
Wiktionaryz, that is when there is tbx support - it does not make sense
to talk about this very specific and helpful feature before.

The translation memory you are working with is only as good as you
created it. The more you work with it, the better it becomes. That's
basically it.

One thing that I also find very helpful: people that speak a language,
but are not mothertognue easily can check how a word was translated
before - which context etc. So this can help a lot during work and gives
better results. Therefore the proof reading effort by mothertognue
speakers will be less.

With proper set up segmentation rules, for example, you can go through
the born and died people of the calendar quite fast, sinche descriptions
are quite repetitive.

Please note: I am having a meeting with a group of colleagues this
week-end and next week I am at the university of Pisa to give a
presentation and a workshop - so if you write and need answers from me
directly, please note it in the subject since it could well be that I
then cannot see all posts.

Have a great week-end!

Best, Sabine

___________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice: chiama da PC a telefono a tariffe esclusive
http://it.messenger.yahoo.com


from_name: Matt R

body:
--- The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> taking knowledge out of Wikipedia just because you find it
> uninteresting or unimportant is arrogant, rude, and destructive
> to the project.

Unless it *is* uninteresting and/or unimportant, in which case it's not
arrogant, rude and destructive to the project, rather it's entirely
constructive.

-- Matt

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com

___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Bryan Derksen
> Sent: Saturday, 25 February 2006 03:49

> Please, the demonization of people we disagree with in this
> thread is getting ridiculous. I don't think a single one of
> the people who've been arguing that an article on Peppers is
> notable enough to have is arguing that it's just because he
> "looks funny." He's being said to be notable because of the
> _fad_ that's sprung up around his unusual appearance. We
> don't have an article about [[Marty Feldman]] just because he
> looked funny either.

At the risk of being tedious upon this subject, I agree with you, but make
the point that there may be a gap between intent and outcome.

Peter (Skyring)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Fred Bauder
>
> Liar, liar
>
> Results 1 - 10 of about 608,000 for "Jimmy wales"
>
> Results 1 - 10 of about 19,300,000 for "bill gates".

Obviously you aren't a member of "Google Premium". Jimbo has access to the
true figures whereas you are just getting the pap they approve for general
consumption.

Pete, astonished to find that on Google China the medal tally for the Winter
Olympics is very very different


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of charles matthews

> However if you search for the exact phrase, "Charles
> Matthews'' beats "Jimbo Wales" at Google.  Put the actual
> Coronation on hold.

Probably not the best thread or place for it, but may I say how much I
enjoyed the photograph of you on your user page "going completely wild"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Charles_Matthews

Peter (Skyring)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Delirium

> Imagine the damage that would be done to Wikipedia if it
> became known that our authors' personal ethical beliefs
> overtly and purposely influenced the information we provide.

Seems to be a winning strategy so far. <g>

Results 1 - 10 of about 215,000,000 for Wikipedia. (0.09 seconds)
Results 1 - 20 of about 79 for "Moral virtue". (0.42 seconds)

Peter (Skyring)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Mayer
> Interesting. I get
>
> 40,300,000 for "Jimmy Wales"
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Jimmy+Wales%22&btnG=Search
>
> and
> 42,700,000 for "Jesus Christ"
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Jesus+Christ%22&bt
> nG=Search
>
> -- mav
>
> PS - IIRC, the same search a month ago had over 50,000,000
> hits for "Jimmy Wales" and about 43,000,000 for "Jesus
> Christ". So you ain't more popular than Jesus anymore. :)

Or googlenotable, at any rate. I suspect that there are a lot of Christians
with limited Internet access, and if you crowded them all into an arena and
asked for a show of hands as to who knew of Jimmy Wales, you would get no
more than two, maybe three.

Pete, leaving this as an exercise for the reader


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

body:
Steve Summit wrote:
> Alphax wrote:
>
>>The evidence is overwhelmingly that the community (whoever the hell they
>>are) wants a free webhost and "blog buttons" [1] to plaster all over them.
>
>
> Can you cite that evidence?
>

A userbox is a piece of code which produces something like:

+-------+--------------------------------+
|       |                                |
|   !   |    This user does blah.        |
|       |                                |
+-------+--------------------------------+

- an image or letter on the left hand side, and some text on the right
hand side. People are encouraged to plaster them all over their
userpages - [[Wikipedia:Userboxes]] has a gigantic list of them, sorted
by category.

A blog button is a small graphic which looks something like
[[Image:Wikipedia button 80x15.png]] - a logo on the left hand side, and
some text on the right hand site. People are encouraged to plaster them
all over their webpages - [1] has a gigantic list of them, sorted by
category; the idea originated at [2]. People have even compliained about
the proliferation of the damn things [3].

"Blog buttons" started out as something useful - an alternative to the
W3C's default HTML validation logo. Userboxes started as an extension to
the Babel templates - first with xx-0 for languages one would not be
expected to speak (eg. Latin), then with programming languages, and we
know where it went from there.

"The community wants a free webhost and blog buttons to plaster all over
their page."

[1] http://gtmcknight.com/buttons/
[2]
http://www.antipixel.com/blog/archives/2002/10/22/steal_these_buttons.html
[3] http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/25906

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 555 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060225/178bfd83/attachment.pgp


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of userpages

body:
On 2/25/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> As soon as you state you are "against the right to bear firearms in the
> United States", you're going to get people on the defensive, especially when
> you start to edit gun-related articles. The same thing goes for "pro- or
> anti-abortion" and loads of other subjects. It's okay to show your interest
> in the subject, but as soon as you show your views you are using Wikipedia
> as a soapbox which it's not (see WP:NOT).

I don't think it's inherently wrong to show your views, the problem is
how it's done.

I *could* have a userbox saying "this user hates foo," but that just
angers supporters of foo, and makes me look like nothing more than a
member of some foo-hating club that's here to POV push.

What would be better would be to say something like "I have an
interest in foo-related subjects, as a person who is not a fan of foo.
I've previously worked on some articles related to foo, such as
[[bar]] and [[quux]]. If you think that my work on foo is overly
negative, please leave a note on my talk page and we can discuss it!"

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 10:41:36 +1100, you wrote:
>
>
>>Or googlenotable, at any rate. I suspect that there are a lot of Christians
>>with limited Internet access, and if you crowded them all into an arena and
>>asked for a show of hands as to who knew of Jimmy Wales, you would get no
>>more than two, maybe three.
>
>
> Nah, Gastrich has spammed them all now to vote for alumni of his
> favourite unaccredited bible college ;-)

For the record, I was spammed, and I used our usual inclusion criteria
when voting.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 555 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060225/be6da470/attachment.pgp


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 14:27:31 +1100, you wrote:

> it takes true dedication to spam those
>without Internet access.

Ahem: it was *limited* not no access.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Guy
> Chapman aka JzG

> On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 10:41:36 +1100, you wrote:
>
> >Or googlenotable, at any rate. I suspect that there are a lot of
> >Christians with limited Internet access, and if you crowded them all
> >into an arena and asked for a show of hands as to who knew of Jimmy
> >Wales, you would get no more than two, maybe three.
>
> Nah, Gastrich has spammed them all now to vote for alumni of
> his favourite unaccredited bible college ;-) Guy (JzG)

This thread is beginning to exert some sort of hideous fascination for me.
Obviously there are wikiundercurrents I wot not, and passions that have
soared over my unheeding nose, for it takes true dedication to spam those
without Internet access.

Pete, unblinking. loglike


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Tony Sidaway

> On 2/24/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> > Actually moral absolutes do have a role. But sending you
> straight to
> > hell is not a good option.
>
> Wikipedia Review?  Been there.  It's boring and it smells of
> wet string.

And sour grapes. Last time I looked, they were talking about establishing a
secure area where they could grizzle privately without people like me coming
over and saying that the world wasn't that bad, really.

Pete, spreading sweetness and light


from_name: Guettarda

subject: [WikiEN-l] Userboxen

body:
On 2/25/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/25/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/25/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> > > User Alibabd seems to have tagged every football team supporter
> > > userbox template for speedy as divisive.  Was that expected?
> > > Guy (JzG)
> >
> > It has absolutely zero relevance to Wikipedia, so I can't see what
> > other purpose it would have except for advocacy.
>
> Do you feel that same way about nationality userboxes?
>
>
> --
> geni

Nationality is divisive.  No one should be able to express their
nationality.  And since nationality can be determined by language, get rid
of Wikipedia Babel.  And since gender is divisive, get rid of things like
that.  Race and ethnicity have caused more wars than football, so we should
remove anything racially identifying.  And since your interests and politics
can be discerned through your contribs, and since contribs can be used for
Wikistalking, lets get rid of that too.

And, last time I noticed, the biggest source of conflict, the most divisive
thing in Wikipedia, the driver of almost all edit wars...was article
content.  We MUST speedy all article content as divisive.  Well, time to get
started - I have 992,688
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics>articles to delete!


subject: [WikiEN-l] Userboxen

body:
User Alibabd seems to have tagged every football team supporter
userbox template for speedy as divisive.  Was that expected?
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Lars Aronsson

subject: [Foundation-l] Fate of "Simple English"

body:
Alison Wheeler wrote:

> why not consider it as targetted at that other group who *need* simple
> English ...
>
> Children.

There are also books in simplified language for people with
various kinds of reading/understanding handicap, so that is also a
possible audience.  But either way, it ruins the wiki concept that
the readers are the writers.  You cannot make a useful childrens
encyclopedia by letting 10 year olds publish their school papers
on dinosaurs.  Rather, you need pretty good authors, possibly with
teacher training, who don't only know the subject, but who also
know what to cut away to make it useful for children.  I wouldn't
say it's impossible, but I think it could be hard to achieve.

"Your parents and teachers can edit this page now."

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


subject: [Foundation-l] Fate of "Simple English"


from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Why trivia and popular culture items need sources

body:
An editor took strong exception to my request for sources for
"popular culture" items in the article on the Statue of Liberty. One
of these items was:

"The New York Liberty, New York's professional women's basketball
team, has the Statue of Liberty as their mascot."

The editor said: "The fact that the NY Liberty b-ball team uses the
SoL as its mascot does NOT need an outside citation, for Pete's sake."

I replied that if it was all that obvious it shouldn't be that hard
to paste in a link from the team's website. Since I try to play fair,
I proceeded to go to the team's website myself to get the link.

Well, whaddaya know.

The team's mascot is, in fact, NOT the Statue of Liberty, but a dog
named Maddie, for Madison Square Garden.

According to the source, http://www.wnba.com/liberty/news/
maddie.html , Maddie is a "loveable dog... known for a unique
personality among the Liberty faithful." Now, to be honest, Maddie
does wear a verdigris-colored crown, but you will have to judge for
yourself whether it resembles the statue's; it looks to me much less
spiky, like a green version of the Burger King's crown. In any case,
my opinion is Maddie is quite canine, and not at all statuesque.
Statue-of-Libertyesque? Statue-of-Libertarian?

(The statue is indeed depicted in the team's _logo_, which probably
is why everyone assumes that it must also be the team's _mascot._)