from_name: Daniel P.B.Smith

body:
> From: "S. Vertigo" <sewev at yahoo.com>
>
> the term 'terrorist' is inapropriate as a
> primary descriptor; but much of American political
> rhetoric uses it. If I replace the term terrorist with
> militant, am I farting in the wind, or will I receive
> some support? This is a general editorial-type
> decision with regard to what terms are NPOV.

Who knows? Try it and see what happens. It's a wiki, all you can do is
experiment until you see which phraseologies achieve a metastable
state.

I did not like the article title "Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal,"
because I thought the word scandal represented a point of view, and,
specifically, a trivializing point of view. "Scandal" seems to me to
focus on the embarrassment of the U.S. military and officials, and I
thought the focus should be on what happened to the prisoners. That got
batted around for a while--one problem was that some felt that omitting
the word scandal was _softening_ the issue--but, ultimately, the title
"Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse" was accepted by all discussants and has
been stable (so far) (I'm almost hesitant to mention it here for fear
that drawing attention to it will destabilize it). Was it worth the
effort? Well, the outcome pleased _me,_ anyway.

I, too, have a problem with the word "terrorist." The dictionary
definition of "terrorism" (AHD4) is: "The unlawful use or threatened
use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against
people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing
societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
Terrorism thus depends on knowing the _intent_ of the terrorists, which
is not always easy to ascertain. Even in the case of the 9/11 attacks,
as far as I know no specific demands were made on the United States.
Was it, then, done with the intention of "intimidating or coercing" the
U.S.? Or was it done to attract supporters to the Al-Qaeda cause?
Labeling something as "terrorist" also depends on ascertaining whether
the actions were "unlawful," which is another very complicated can of
worms.

It seems clearly preferable to me to use terms that focus on
objectively ascertainable actions (bombing, shooting, hijacking,
killing) rather than on intentions.

I also feel that the word "terrorist" is currently being used in the
United States in much the same way that "communist" was during the
fifties: as a convenient label for anyone the United States wishes to
attack. It is used because it is so emotion-laden that it has the
effect of shutting down thought processes. To raise questions about
anything labeled as relating to "terrorism" is to being risk being
thought disloyal. For example, how can anyone possibly object to having
the MBTA police search them without probable cause, since it is being
done to fight "terrorism?"

But I don't know what you mean by "support" you. I think "terrorism" is
not a neutral term, and I think it would be a good idea to use terms
that are more neutral, but I'm not going to stand shoulder-to-shoulder
with you in revert wars or anything like that...

Try editing "terrorist" in some way that does not seems to be condoning
their actions and see what happens.

--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at verizon.net alternate:
dpbsmith at alum.mit.edu
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Claudio V

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Slow SQL Queries?

body:
Hi Timwi,

> Use explain:
>
>
+-------+-------+--------------------------+-----------+---------+------+------+-----------------------------+
> | table | type  | possible_keys            | key
>   | key_len | ref
> | rows | Extra                       |
>
+-------+-------+--------------------------+-----------+---------+------+------+-----------------------------+
> | old   | range | old_title,user_timestamp |
> old_title |     255 | NULL
> |    1 | where used; Using temporary |
>
+-------+-------+--------------------------+-----------+---------+------+------+-----------------------------+
>

Thanks for your quick reply. How did you get an index
for "old_title"? My downloaded version doesn't have
this. When I tried to create one a couple weeks ago,
after around 24 hours it filled up the remaining 12 GB
of my hard drive and crashed, so I wasn't able to
create it. Here are the indexes currently available
for the table "old":

Key_name		Column_name
old_id			old_id
old_timestamp		old_timestamp
old_namespace		old_namespace
old_namespace		old_title
name_title_timestamp	old_namespace
name_title_timestamp	old_title
name_title_timestamp	inverse_timestamp
user_timestamp		old_user
user_timestamp		inverse_timestamp
usertext_timestamp	old_user_text
usertext_timestamp	inverse_timestamp

I think if I had "old_title" indexed, things would be
a lot easier. Any tips?

Thanks.

Claudio

______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca


list: wikien-l

from_name: S. Vertigo

subject: [WikiEN-l] Viajero/Zero and Lance6 - POV terms

body:
> Geoffrey Burling wrote:
>> *President Bush, alleged cocaine abuser
>> *The CIA allegedly sold drugs in Los Angeles to
fund the Contras in Nicaraugua

Hmm. It would seem to me that some would consider even
the rather bland term "alleged" as biased. Maybe a
'less biased way' to put these might be:

* President Bush, true patriot and a national
treasure.

* The CIA, according to nutcase conspiracy theorists,
sold some contraband in Guatemala to help fund special
covert operations against the communist threat.

See, now isnt that so much better?

S

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


from_name: Roozbeh Pournader

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fired for Wikipedia

body:
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 15:32:47 -0700 (PDT), Mark Richards
<marich712000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Just out of interest, has anyone been fired or
> disciplined for Wikipedianing at work?

Well, I work at the management level of a company that I partially
own, and I'm considering the discipline myself for working at
Wikipedia at work. Other people in the company are also thinking about
it, I'm sure. ;-)


from_name: Bill Clark

subject: [Wikitech-l] templates fields delimiters

body:
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:52:24 +0100, Rowan Collins
<rowan.collins at gmail.com> wrote:

> So they do... Question is, does anyone know how that *does* work?
> [Parser.php is more than a little, um, opaque...]

I haven't looked at it (and don't have time at this exact moment) but
I imagine it's something like this:  Keep track of how deep you are
nested within the [['s, and treat the | characters differently
according to context.  If you're at the top level, a | character is a
delimiter for that level, but if you're already nested inside another
[[ level (i.e. you're inside a link) then treat the | character
according to the piped-link interpretation.  Look for ]]'s to know
when you should pop back out to the previous level/context.

-Bill Clark


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

body:
Hello,

There is a bad bug currently with templates :
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=411192&aid=965725&group_id=34373

Basicly, we use | as a delimiter between parameters which prevent user
to rename links ( [[foo|blabla]] ) :

    {{template|para1=[[foo|bla]]|para2=oooo}}

Wich will not be parsed correctly.

In the bug report, a proposal is to use |CR instead :

{{template
para1=[[bla|something]]|
para2=ooo|
}}

The parser will then be much easier and the |CR doesn't conflict with
anything.

The fix in the code seems trivial but users will have to fix the already
existing templates (but he we are still in beta).

--
Ashar Voultoiz


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: sitenotice

body:
Tim Starling wrote:

> I made the message which it draws it
> from configurable, so that developers still have the ability to announce
> downtime. This is done with an initial colon in $wgSiteNotice, for
> example ":fundraising_notice".
> [...]
> If I thought it was a good idea to replace $wgSiteNotice with
> wfMsg('sitenotice'), I would have done so, instead of writing something
> more complicated and more flexible.

Wouldn't replacing $wgSiteNotice with wfMsg('sitenotice') still allow
for this flexibility since, now that it is wiki-parsed, it can contain
something like "{{fundraising_notice}}"?

Timwi


from_name: Rowan Collins

body:
> There is a bad bug currently with templates :
> http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=411192&aid=965725&group_id=34373

...

> {{template
> para1=[[bla|something]]|
> para2=ooo|
> }}
>
> The parser will then be much easier and the |CR doesn't conflict with
> anything.

I've replied at Sourceforge already, but to reiterate: I think
enforcing <CR> is a bad idea, because it forces layout which may not
be appropriate in all circumstances. Better to use something equally
unique, but less obtrusive, such as "||":

{{template || para1=[[bla|something]] || para2=ooo }}

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: re monobook.css copyright

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> I was cleaning up various things in Wiktionary when I ran into the link
> to http://en.wiktionary.org/style-new/monobook/main.css . Admittedly I
> know nothing about css files but the line near the top "Copyright
> Gabriel Wicke" grabbed my attention.  There is no mention that it is
> being released under any free software licence.  It seems to me that
> this is something that should be corrected.
>
> Ec

Hello,

Gabriel updated the file in cvs and tagged it for the next v1.3 beta.
The file is released under the GPL license.

--
Ashar Voultoiz


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: templates fields delimiters

body:
Rowan Collins wrote:

> I've replied at Sourceforge already, but to reiterate: I think
> enforcing <CR> is a bad idea, because it forces layout which may not
> be appropriate in all circumstances. Better to use something equally
> unique, but less obtrusive, such as "||":
>
> {{template || para1=[[bla|something]] || para2=ooo }}

Neither of your suggestions would fix something something like this:

{{template1||para1={{template2||para=hah, you're screwed!}}}}

(or would it?)

Better to fix the parser properly...

Timwi


from_name: Yann Forget

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: interlang link to minnan

body:
Le Wednesday 28 July 2004 15:44, Henry H. Tan-Tenn a ?crit :
> Pochung(Pektiong) Chen(Tan) wrote:
> > Interlang link to minnan wikipedia is not working properly.
> > [[minnan:blah]] will NOT appear in the navigation bar. It will
> > appear as part of the text (with correct URL link to
> > minnan.wikipedia.org/blah)
>
> Well, not always correct.
>
> A few interlanguage links are distorted.  These occur in en (and likely
> other non-UTF-8 wikis but I haven't taken a look).  The bad links share
> the feature of having article titles ending with the ? (n superior)
> character (very common in the Minnan Wikipedia, btw).  Interestingly,
> not all such titles are adversely affected.
>
> See
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_1.3_comments_and_bug_reports
> (sect 8.5).
>
> Has anyone seen this type of bug elsewhere?  (Sorry this is a bit OT.)

Yes this bug is present on fr:

Yann
--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclop?die libre
http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Slow SQL Queries?

body:
Claudio V wrote:

> Is there a way to run fast queries (perhaps using
> indexes) using the "old" table in my replication of
> the English Wikipedia database (MySQL 4.0.20)?

You'll either have to make sure your query can make use of the existing
indexes, or create the necessary indexes yourself.

> select distinct old_user, old_user_text
> from old
> where old_user > 0
> and old_title like 'History_of_%';

Use explain:

+-------+-------+--------------------------+-----------+---------+------+------+-----------------------------+
| table | type  | possible_keys            | key       | key_len | ref
| rows | Extra                       |
+-------+-------+--------------------------+-----------+---------+------+------+-----------------------------+
| old   | range | old_title,user_timestamp | old_title |     255 | NULL
|    1 | where used; Using temporary |
+-------+-------+--------------------------+-----------+---------+------+------+-----------------------------+

Your query is slow because it uses a temporary table.

> I'm surprised that this sort of query runs so slowly,
> considering that when on the live Wikipedia, you click
> on "User Contributions" and get a list of responses
> with lightning speed.

mysql> explain SELECT
     -> old_namespace,old_title,old_timestamp,old_comment,
     -> old_minor_edit,old_user_text FROM old
     -> WHERE old_user_text='Timwi' ORDER BY inverse_timestamp
     -> LIMIT 100;
+-------+------+--------------------+--------------------+---------+-------+------+------------+
| table | type | possible_keys      | key                | key_len | ref
   | rows | Extra      |
+-------+------+--------------------+--------------------+---------+-------+------+------------+
| old   | ref  | usertext_timestamp | usertext_timestamp |     255 |
const |  199 | where used |
+-------+------+--------------------+--------------------+---------+-------+------+------------+

See? No temporary table.

A major difference that I can see between your query and this one is
that yours uses DISTINCT, but you'll have to experiment a bit to see if
that's the only reason.

Also, type=ref with ref=const is faster than type=range, but I assume
with what your query is trying to achieve you can't avoid type=range.

Timwi


from_name: Marco Krohn

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] fundraising page - shouldn't we note what we are
	aiming for?

body:
Hi,

I am currently reading the interview with Jimmy
(http://interviews.slashdot.org/interviews/04/07/28/1351230.shtml?tid=146&tid=95&tid=11)
and his nice answers. In particular

"One of the reasons I was excited to be asked by Roblimo to do this interview
is that the slashdot community in particular has been so generous to us in
the past."

is nice and shortly after that follows the "donate money" and "what we use the
money for" links. Following the first link I would like to suggest changing
two things:

* there still is a link to Brion Vibbers notebook fund at the very end of the
page. Don't get me wrong, Brion deserves a lot more money than he probably
gets through donations, but linking to a page which seems to be outdated
doesn't look good to me.

* the fundraising page doesn't contain information how much money we are
aiming for. A potential donator would just see that we have ~20 K$ on our
account and many probably will think "well, they probably have enough money".

Sure, there is some information on the meta page
([[m:What_we_use_the_money_for]]), but the page takes ~10 sec to load, there
is a lot of text and the information what we are aiming for is at the end of
the text.

IMHO it would make sense to add next to the current numbers that we are aiming
for 50 K$ - 100 K$ money which we would like to spend on hardware this year.

best regards,
  Marco


from_name: Chmouel Boudjnah

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: Some news of the french servers. Access to
	the	developers

body:
M?d?ric BOQUIEN <mederic.boquien at laposte.net> writes:

> password of each server (preferably different passwords or the same
> password? Who said paranoid? ;) ) through a secure channel (anyone knows a
> ? GPG for the dummies? ? for me?). The access to the server is made by dnat

This article may be helpful for you :

http://linsec.ca/bin/view/Main/GnuPG

--
http://www.chmouel.com/


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 07/28/04 18:07, Harry Smith wrote:

> with regard to calling an act murder.  The common
> definition of murder and the definition that appears
> in wikipedia is:
> Murder is the crime of intentionally causing the death
> of another human being, without lawful excuse.
> If we accept this definition, then we need to ask if
> the individuals that shot the boy had lawful excuse.
>>From the articles, the reason for the shooting is that
> the boy and his family opposed the attempt to use the
> family's property/land.  Does the family's refusal
> constitute lawful excuse for the shooting?

The particular case isn't the issue. What is at issue is
your habit of using the linked words [[terrorist]] and
[[murder]] when you contribute INN news pieces to [[Current
events]]. It's blatant emotive slanting of the story. And
the real problem is it isn't informative - how was the
"murder" in question performed? [[terrorist]] vs [[freedom
fighter]] vs fighter without major military hardware? Etc.

Your usage of terms in a blatantly emotive way that adds
nothing to the informational content of the piece is a
real problem.

- d.


from_name: Gabriel Wicke

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: sitenotice

body:
On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 23:57 +1000, Tim Starling wrote:
> If I thought it was a good idea to replace $wgSiteNotice with
> wfMsg('sitenotice'), I would have done so, instead of writing something
> more complicated and more flexible.

I've done this for now:

$notice = wfMsg( 'sitenotice' );
if($notice == '<sitenotice>') $notice = '';
if($wgSiteNotice) $notice .= $wgSiteNotice;
if($notice != '-' && $notice != '') {
        $parserOutput = $wgParser->parse( $notice, $wgTitle,
                                        $wgOut->mParserOptions, true );
        $wgSiteNotice = $parserOutput->getText();
}

It allows you to append arbitrary site-wide informations with the
possibility to use templates (need to be pulled from the MW NS to
provide a non-localized fallback) for recurring events.

And projects can set up their own message on top of that my modifying
MediaWiki:Sitenotice to something non-empty and non-'-'.
--
Gabriel Wicke


from_name: Christopher Larberg

body:
I'm not attempting to railroad this discussion off-track, but perhaps you could find better places to post your sarcastically anti-American vitriol.
-Slowking Man
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: S. Vertigo<mailto:sewev at yahoo.com>
  To: English Wikipedia<mailto:wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
  Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 3:51 PM
  Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Viajero/Zero and Lance6 - POV terms

  > Geoffrey Burling wrote:
  >> *President Bush, alleged cocaine abuser
  >> *The CIA allegedly sold drugs in Los Angeles to
  fund the Contras in Nicaraugua

  Hmm. It would seem to me that some would consider even
  the rather bland term "alleged" as biased. Maybe a
  'less biased way' to put these might be:

  * President Bush, true patriot and a national
  treasure.

  * The CIA, according to nutcase conspiracy theorists,
  sold some contraband in Guatemala to help fund special
  covert operations against the communist threat.

  See, now isnt that so much better?

  S

  __________________________________
  Do you Yahoo!?
  New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
  http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail<http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail>
  _______________________________________________
  WikiEN-l mailing list
  WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org<mailto:WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org>
  http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l<http://mail.wikipediaorg/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040728/abe85474/attachment.htm


from_name: zero 0000

subject: [WikiEN-l] murder versus kill

body:
The purpose of a news report should be to inform the reader what
happened.
That's all.  Once it attempts in addition to evoke a particular
emotional
reaction in the reader it ceases to be (only) a news report and becomes
an
editorial.  For this reason, it is better to choose words that describe
the deed
without an emotional undertone.  Thus "kill", "shot dead", etc, are to
be
prefered over "murder", "cut down", "slaughtered" etc..

Zero.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


body:
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 10:41:18 -0700 (PDT), David Iberri
<diberri at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Sorry if this is obvious, but maybe something could be learned by the way the parser handles
> wikilinks in image captions. For example, wikilinks with alt. titles work fine, even though image
> properties are separated by pipes

So they do... Question is, does anyone know how that *does* work?
[Parser.php is more than a little, um, opaque...]

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Custom tags

body:
Hacksprint wrote:
> Unfortunately setHook isn't used anywhere so I have no example
> to work with and I don't know where the best place to insert the
> hook from.  Anyone have any hints I could use?

We've got a couple of extensions in CVS:
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/wikipedia/extensions/

EasyTimeline and WikiHiero are in use on Wikipedia so should be in a
reasonably working state.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040728/af71a549/attachment.pgp>


body:
On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 20:52 +0100, Rowan Collins wrote:
> So they do... Question is, does anyone know how that *does* work?
> [Parser.php is more than a little, um, opaque...]

Yes, by calling replaceInternalLinks twice ;-)
--
Gabriel Wicke


from_name: Geoff Burling

body:
So many emails, so little time to respond to them all . . .

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> People could have fun with, "acquitted murderer, O. J. Simpson."??? :-$

I thought about this very example after I sent my email off. Remember, while
Simpson was found not guilty at the criminal trial, a subsequent civil trial
did hold him responsible for the murder.

How, then should we treat this particular case? Did he do it or not?

We have 2 authoritative opinins here, so both should be mentioned in the
article, with the qualifier "he is commonly believed to have killed his wife."
Including both verdicts is important because they show that numerous POVs
exist on the matter.

> The terms need to be kept simple and generic.  "Accused" and "alleged"
> can probably be merged.  "Indicted" may be a term that depends on the
> nature of the legal system, but where applicable lends itself well to
> precise definition.  "Convicted" is easily understood.

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, S. Vertigo wrote:

> Hmm. It would seem to me that some would consider even
> the rather bland term "alleged" as biased.

I'm treating both of these comments together because they touched on soemthing
that I said which left me unsatisfied: overuse of the word "alleged" can
backfire, & make it appear what is an opinion actual fact. (_Spy_ magazine
years ago managed this very feat when they printed an index to Andy
Worhol's gossip-filled diary: when it came to the entries about Bianca
Jagger, all of the incidents were qualified as "alleged" -- & she was the
only figure for whom this was done. Mush was said with the use of that one
word.)

Because of that connotation, I tend towards using the word "accused" when
possible: more than "alleged", "accused" indicates that an opinion has been
expressed; & since "accused" does not fluently fit into the passive voice,
it encourages a other Wikipedians to make a contribution & identify _who_
the accuser is.

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, Christopher Larberg wrote:

> I'm not attempting to railroad this discussion off-track, but perhaps you
> could find better places to post your sarcastically anti-American
> vitriol.

This one caught me off-guard & took me some time to compose a response.

The point of my examples was to select some that were not as emotion-laden
as the other ones we've discussed on this list: killings related to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, White Supremacy, German-Polish relations. In
trying to frame how to explain the facts & opinions, we too often get
distracted by repeating the "facts". I had tried to pick some examples
that would allow me to help everyone see where I was going, rather than
become distracted with the ladder I was using to get us there. I obviously
failed at this by my selection of controversial examples, & I'm sorry
about that.

However, as a U.S. citizen, I was under the impression that I was free to
criticize any public figure, as long as I did not indulge in slander or
libel. None of the things I wrote were either, & I am deeply offended that
by exercising my right to free speech I am seen as being unfaithful to my
country. Especially as that email has been the only time I said anything
on this email list that could be considered critical of my country. And
for the record, away from Wikipedia I am far less kind & restrained about
what I say about the goofballs who are unashamedly grinding my country into
the mud.

Geoff


from_name: Brian Corr

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Boston meeting???? making it later

body:
Great minds think alike! While this discussion was going on, Ed and I were
emailing and Ed made reservations @ the S&S Restaurant in Cambridge, MA. We
can start arriving as early as 1:00 P.M., but since some of us will
undoubtedly be late, our reservation is officially for 2:00 to 4:30. And we
should "take care of the waitress" if we want to linger any further.

Currently there are 10 people signed up (not counting Jimbo), and the
details on attendees, location, and directions can all be found on
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales/Boston>

I had already sent some emails to other people in the Boston area earlier
today, and it's already posted on Recentchanges as per Jimbo's suggestion
as well as on Goings on (thanks Raul654).

Thanks, Brian

On Wed Jul 28 14:06:47 UTC 2004, daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:
>I would like to suggest that we try to make it a little later, especially
>for those of us who are coming in from New York and other places.
>
>In a message dated 7/28/2004 9:04:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "Jimmy
>(Jimbo) Wales" <jwales at wikia.com> writes:
>
> >
> >Er, I said 3:30, but I defer to the wiki page if it says 1pm.
> >
> >But still, I'd like to see this promoted a bit more heavily, because
> >it seems like sort of a small crowd so far.
> >
> >moink wrote:
> >
> >> > What Boston meeting this Saturday?
> >>
> >> This Saturday, 1pm (proposed, looks like it'll be kept) , at the S & S
> >> Restaurant in Cambridge.  See [[User:Jimbo Wales/Boston]]
> >>
> >> moink


body:
Gabriel Wicke wrote:

> On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 20:52 +0100, Rowan Collins wrote:
>
>>So they do... Question is, does anyone know how that *does* work?
>>[Parser.php is more than a little, um, opaque...]
>
> Yes, by calling replaceInternalLinks twice ;-)

Ouch.


body:
--- Christopher Larberg
<the_pokemon_master at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not attempting to railroad this discussion
> off-track, but perhaps you could find better places
> to post your sarcastically anti-American vitriol.

While Ill agree to refrain from making political
comments, (dont talk about the elephant in the room,
please) but I dont recall writing anything
"anti-American."  I made a comment about how
allegations made toward GW Bush and the CIA could be
"cleaned up" to reflect a more "neutral" point of
view. If you are confusing Bush and the CIA with the
people and culture called "America," well, then that
would be a good example of what not to confuse.

S
"The concept "anti-American" is an interesting one.
The counterpart is used only in totalitarian states or
military dictatorships...That's a natural usage among
people with deeply rooted totalitarian instincts,
which identify state policy with the society, the
people, the culture. In contrast, people with even the
slightest concept of democracy treat such notions with
ridicule and contempt."

>   * President Bush, true patriot and a national
>   treasure.
>
>   * The CIA, according to nutcase conspiracy
> theorists,
>   sold some contraband in Guatemala to help fund
> special
>   covert operations against the communist threat.
>
>   See, now isnt that so much better?
>
>   S
>
>
>
>   __________________________________
>   Do you Yahoo!?
>   New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
>
>
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail<http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail>
>
>   _______________________________________________
>   WikiEN-l mailing list
>
>
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org<mailto:WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org>
>
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l<http://mail.wikipediaorg/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>
> > _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Slow SQL Queries?

body:
Claudio V wrote:

> Thanks for your quick reply. How did you get an index
> for "old_title"?

[[Special:Contributions]] doesn't use one.

However, as Brion mentioned, and as evidenced by your own output as
well, there is a mutli-column index on both old_title and old_namespace.
You should add "and old_namespace=0" to your query. (But you should
probably also remove the "DISTINCT" keyword and instead do the
filtering-out of duplicates in your favourite programming language.)

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Viajero/Zero and Lance6 - POV terms

body:
Geoffrey Burling wrote:

[Examples]
> *President Bush, alleged cocaine abuser
> *The CIA allegedly sold drugs in Los Angeles to fund the Contras in Nicaraugua
> *Kenneth Lay, indicted for corporate fraud
> *Martha Stewart, convicted of insider trading

> I think is a solution that would nicely fit with the rules of NPOV.

I thought that too. Interestingly though UK broadcasting rules are more
relaxed about this.

For instance, programmes do not have to say "Harold Shipman, convicted
of mass murder,...". They can, and do, say "Mass murderer Harold
Shipman...". Once someone has been convicted of X, that person doesn't
appear to have recourse if someone calls them an Xer.

Is this a case where WP NPOV exacts a higher standard than supposedly
neutral TV news programmes?

Pete


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: sitenotice

body:
Gabriel Wicke wrote:
> I added a generic message called 'sitenotice' to Language.php that
> replaces fundraising_notice and shows up in Special:Allmessages. It's
> parsed as normal wiki syntax now. The code that does this is a live
> tweak in Setup.php on Zwinger currently, imo it would make sense to
> replace $wgSiteNotice with it, with a default of '-' = switched off.
> Opinions?

$wgSiteNotice isn't just used for fundraising. It's intended as a way
developers can inform users about site-wide downtime. It's also
displayed if there's a database connection error. That's why we have
outage.php. It was accidentally used for a short time as a multi-lingual
fundraising notice, and to that end I wrote a feature allowing the site
notice to be drawn from a message. I made the message which it draws it
from configurable, so that developers still have the ability to announce
downtime. This is done with an initial colon in $wgSiteNotice, for
example ":fundraising_notice". The reason it is "fundraising_notice"
instead of "sitenotice" is so that users can translate a number of
important messages developers might want to issue in advance, allowing a
developer to select the one relevant to the occasion. Not only can they
set it, but they don't have to clear the message cache when they do so.

If I thought it was a good idea to replace $wgSiteNotice with
wfMsg('sitenotice'), I would have done so, instead of writing something
more complicated and more flexible.

-- Tim Starling


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: fundraising page - shouldn't we note what we are
	aiming for?

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Marco Krohn wrote:
>
>> the fundraising page doesn't contain information how much money we are
>> aiming for. A potential donator would just see that we have ~20 K$ on
>> our account and many probably will think "well, they probably have
>> enough money".
>>
> A certain amount should be identified as a contingency reserve.
> Hardware is not consistent when it comes to giving an advance warning of
> its impending death.  If it is a key item there may not otherwise be
> time to seek the needed funding; immediate replacement would be
> essential.  Thus, establishing a contingency reserve at twice the
> replacement cost of the most expensive single piece of hardware would be
> prudent.
>
> Ec

Why not having a dynamic picture looking like:

                  WikiPediaThon

        0$        30k$                  100K$
	[OOOOoooooo......................]

Where:
  O is provision
  o achieved
  . still needed

--
Ashar Voultoiz


body:
On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 23:30 +0100, Timwi wrote:
> > Yes, by calling replaceInternalLinks twice ;-)
>
> Ouch.

Not necessarily- it's more or less the fastest way to do this with a
regex-based parser like the current MediaWiki one. The second call ist
not expensive. Searches the entire text though..
--
Gabriel Wicke


from_name: Anthere

body:
Marco Krohn wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am currently reading the interview with Jimmy
> (http://interviews.slashdot.org/interviews/04/07/28/1351230.shtml?tid=146&tid=95&tid=11)
> and his nice answers. In particular
>
> "One of the reasons I was excited to be asked by Roblimo to do this interview
> is that the slashdot community in particular has been so generous to us in
> the past."
>
> is nice and shortly after that follows the "donate money" and "what we use the
> money for" links. Following the first link I would like to suggest changing
> two things:
>
> * there still is a link to Brion Vibbers notebook fund at the very end of the
> page. Don't get me wrong, Brion deserves a lot more money than he probably
> gets through donations, but linking to a page which seems to be outdated
> doesn't look good to me.

This is a valid comment.
And this is planned.

ant


from_name: Harry Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] murder versus kill

body:
Not using the word murder is an option.  You seem to
be saying we should not use the word murder due to its
emotional undertone, but rather use kill (one
example).

Wikipedia differentiates between these two words:

Murder is the crime of intentionally causing the death
of another human being, without lawful excuse.

As an English language word: to deprive of life, to
end, extinguish or terminate in a final manner (verb),
or the result of this action (noun).

Many people have killed, especially when one talks of
people that we adults during 1933-1945. A smaller
number, one might say much smaller, murdered.

All murder is killing, but not the reverse.

To fail to differentiate between these two actions is
to deprive the reader of information that is
important.  At least I believe that it is important.
I for one have never murdered.

Killing the enemy in time of war is an effective means
of preventing your comrades and yourself from being
killed.  This distinction is important.

If we decide to refrain from the word murder, there
are a number of other words that are similiar.  Are to
refrain from them as well.

One example (lets stay calm here) replace "rape" with
"forced intercourse".

Lance6Wins

--- zero 0000 <nought_0000 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> The purpose of a news report should be to inform the
> reader what
> happened.
> That's all.  Once it attempts in addition to evoke a
> particular
> emotional
> reaction in the reader it ceases to be (only) a news
> report and becomes
> an
> editorial.  For this reason, it is better to choose
> words that describe
> the deed
> without an emotional undertone.  Thus "kill", "shot
> dead", etc, are to
> be
> prefered over "murder", "cut down", "slaughtered"
> etc..
>
> Zero.
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


from_name: Henry H. Tan-Tenn

body:
Henry H. Tan-Tenn wrote:

> A few interlanguage links are distorted.

Hmm...this could be entirely coincidental but in the last two days I've
suddenly seen a numer of (newly added) Minnan interlanguage links that
fail to lead back to the specified article.  (A recent example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enjo_kosai .)  In my previous month or so
of adding such links I hadn't bumped into such problems.

I will file an official bug report (or add to an existing one).


from_name: S. Vertigo

subject: [WikiEN-l] murder versus kill

body:
No, its not about emotional undertone. "Murder" means
"wrongful immoral killing"; as in the Commandment
"Thou shall do no murder" usually misstated as "thou
shalt not kill"  This is the meaning of the word. The
"crime" definition as described by recent and local
government law is inferior and subordinate to its true
general meaning. The legal definition of the crime
"murder" does not replace what the word itself means
in society.

So why not just use the word murder in its general
sense? I agree its tempting to call all such killings
"murders" but nobody asks that we do so even-handedly
accross all topics for all non-accidental killing
(suicide, abortion, excecution, missile strikes,
collateral damage,), except for a very small number of
very strange people. Im tempted myself, but the use of
the term carries a disruptive POV element (local pov
vs other) that without other reason justifies its
disinclusion.

> Killing the enemy in time of war is an effective
> means of preventing your comrades and yourself from
being killed.  This distinction is important.

But this can also be a soldiers rationalization, where
"enemy" can mean almost anyone (notice how some creeps
use the phrase "enemies, foreign 'and domestic?'"
Domestic enemies?  So, now we must "be vigilant" and
keep watch out for "domestic enemies," eh? (Rebel
scum?)  To pull apart your little statement, if an
"enemy" is, say, a whole race of people, is their mass
killing murder? To say that its "not technically a
crime called murder"; that would be simple avoidance
and denial of the issue. People in denail about
something cant or wont really participate in the
discussion.

S

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] creeps who swear to defend the Constitution

body:
S. Vertigo wrote:

> notice how some creeps
> use the phrase "enemies, foreign 'and domestic?'"
> Domestic enemies?  So, now we must "be vigilant" and
> keep watch out for "domestic enemies," eh? (Rebel
> scum?)

We creeps include every person who ever served in any branch of the
military forces of the United States.  We creeps swore that oath when we
entered service to our country.

--
  Sean Barrett
  sean at epoptic.com


from_name: Christopher Mahan

subject: [WikiEN-l] murder versus kill

body:
--- "S. Vertigo" <sewev at yahoo.com> wrote:

> But this can also be a soldiers rationalization, where
> "enemy" can mean almost anyone (notice how some creeps
> use the phrase "enemies, foreign 'and domestic?'"
> Domestic enemies?

The foreign and domestic bit comes from:
It's from the Oath of Allegiance of the United States of America, as
well as the Military Oath.

see:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2002/janqtr/8cfr337.1.htm
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/faq/oaths.htm

=====
Chris Mahan
818.943.1850 cell
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
chris.mahan at gmail.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] murder versus kill

body:
Zero is right:

> The purpose of a news report should be to inform the reader
> what happened. That's all.

Thus:

* A sixteen-year-old Gaza resident was killed by militants during an
argument over the placement of heavy weapons in front of the boy's
residence. (this is straight news)

* His sister, Raza Wayah, said, "I hate those Fatah murderers! They
slaughtered poor Ali like an innocent lamb!!" (point of view)

Note that the second sentence meets the requirements of the NPOV policy,
because it attributes a point of view to its source. Raza Wayah is the
one who called the killing 'murder' and 'slaughter' -- not the
Wikipedia.

Would someone please add this example to the [[Wikipedia:NPOV
tutorial]]?

Furtively,

Uncle Ed


from_name: Mark Richards

body:
Geoffrey has hit the nail on the head here. x killed
y. That much we agree on. x is accused of murder by
the family of y, but the court found him innocent. The
family of y think this is a travesty of justice.
Mark

--- Geoffrey Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:

> Many years ago, I took a couple of journalism
> classes in college. One of the
> few things I remember is that when writing about
> unlawful activities, one
> must carefully use specific words to qualify the
> charge, such as "accused",
> "alleged", "indicted", & "convicted". For example:
>
> *President Bush, alleged cocaine abuser
>
> *The CIA allegedly sold drugs in Los Angeles to fund
> the Contras in Nicaraugua
>
> *Kenneth Lay, indicted for corporate fraud
>
> *Martha Stewart, convicted of insider trading
>
> Note carefully that what is being asserted is not
> whether or not any of the
> people mentioned _actually_ committed the crimes,
> merely the opinions of
> a large number of people, or the official verdicts
> of the American legal
> system. And it has been documented that individuals
> are occasionally
> arrested, tried & convicted for crimes that they are
> later shown not to have
> committed -- thus we cannot assert that conviction
> for a crime means that it
> was an NPOV fact that they actualy committed that
> specific crime.
>
> Also note that these phrases are based on
> Anglo-American law, where people
> are arrested, indicted by a grand jury, then found
> innocent or guilty by a
> court. I'm not sure just what the equivalent
> terminology in Civil Law would
> be. If a prosecuting judge charges someone with a
> crime, would it be correct
> to say that the person charged is indicted?
>
> I think is a solution that would nicely fit with the
> rules of NPOV.
>
> Geoff
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


body:
Well, there comes a point where a fact is no longer
disputed by any significant number of people. I don't
know whether Harold Shipman still denies murder, but,
if he admits it, then surely calling him a murderer is
justified and NPOV. If he disputes it, then calling
him a 'convicted murderer, a charge that he still
denies' seems fair.
Mark

--- Pete/Pcb21 <pete_pcb21_wpmail at pcbartlett.com>
wrote:

> Geoffrey Burling wrote:
>
> [Examples]
> > *President Bush, alleged cocaine abuser
> > *The CIA allegedly sold drugs in Los Angeles to
> fund the Contras in Nicaraugua
> > *Kenneth Lay, indicted for corporate fraud
> > *Martha Stewart, convicted of insider trading
>
> > I think is a solution that would nicely fit with
> the rules of NPOV.
>
> I thought that too. Interestingly though UK
> broadcasting rules are more
> relaxed about this.
>
> For instance, programmes do not have to say "Harold
> Shipman, convicted
> of mass murder,...". They can, and do, say "Mass
> murderer Harold
> Shipman...". Once someone has been convicted of X,
> that person doesn't
> appear to have recourse if someone calls them an
> Xer.
>
> Is this a case where WP NPOV exacts a higher
> standard than supposedly
> neutral TV news programmes?
>
> Pete
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


subject: [WikiEN-l] murder versus kill

body:
Harry Smith is right when he says:

> To fail to differentiate between these two [murder and killing] is
> to deprive the reader of information that is important.

That is why, after reporting the straight news that militants killed an
Arab youth, we ought to try and report some additional information.

If we can find someone on the scene or related to it, or who has a
moral/legal point of view about it, then we can quote them.

For example:

* A statement by Fatah defended the killing as "regrettable but utterly
necessary ... Anyone who gets in our way must die, it is the will of
Allah." (totally made-up hypothetical statement)

* A statement by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said: "These militants are
animals, they murder anyone who gets in their way." (also hypothetical)

Each of these sample statements provides the necessary information. One
source says the killing was NOT murder, and the other source says it
WAS.

The Wikipedia cannot, unfortunately, let the reader know which source is
right but anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that side @#$ is
usually right in these matters. (I'm not saying which bullet point @#$
refers to...)

Equivocally,

Uncle Ed


subject: [WikiEN-l] murder versus kill

body:
--- "S. Vertigo" <sewev at yahoo.com> wrote:

> No, its not about emotional undertone. "Murder"
> means
> "wrongful immoral killing"; as in the Commandment
> "Thou shall do no murder" usually misstated as "thou
> shalt not kill"  This is the meaning of the word.

S Vertigo is correct on this point.  I didnt want to
bring this up lest we have folks who are not aware of
this and a new diversionary arguments begins on this
point.

> So why not just use the word murder in its general
> sense? I agree its tempting to call all such
> killings
> "murders" but nobody asks that we do so
> even-handedly
> accross all topics for all non-accidental killing
> (suicide, abortion, excecution, missile strikes,
> collateral damage,), except for a very small number
> of
> very strange people.

Murder has an intentional aspect.

Collateral damage is not murder for that reason, just
as manslaughter is not murder.

Missile strikes either hit the target populated by
enemy combatants or become collateral damage, unless
the intention is to target civilian populations.
(this addresses both Major H. Schmidt and Qassam
rocket attacks.  One can reach their own conclusions
regarding Dresden. Thank God I was not issued that
order.)

Suicide is considered self-murder in a number of
societies. Unlike other murders, I dont know of any
that impose the death penalty for it however.

Execution is not "without lawful excuse" unless we are
talking about the recent beheadings (murders) in Iraq
regarding which the perpetrators prefer execution to
murder.

Abortion is an issue about which numerous
well-intentioned, well-respected individuals disagree.

> Im tempted myself, but the use
> of
> the term carries a disruptive POV element (local pov
> vs other) that without other reason justifies its
> disinclusion.
>

Example and further elucidation, please.

> > Killing the enemy in time of war is an effective
> > means of preventing your comrades and yourself
> from
> being killed.  This distinction is important.
>
> But this can also be a soldiers rationalization,
> where
> "enemy" can mean almost anyone (notice how some
> creeps
> use the phrase "enemies, foreign 'and domestic?'"
> Domestic enemies?  So, now we must "be vigilant" and
> keep watch out for "domestic enemies," eh? (Rebel
> scum?)  To pull apart your little statement, if an
> "enemy" is, say, a whole race of people, is their
> mass
> killing murder?

Foreign enemies are often, not always, identified by
uniform.  Domestic enemies are the province of law
enforcement agencies rather than the military, unless
during a state of emergency or an incident located on
military property.

> To say that its "not technically a
> crime called murder"; that would be simple avoidance
> and denial of the issue. People in denail about
> something cant or wont really participate in the
> discussion.
>

Killing in war is not murder.  Neither technically nor
ethically.

War, disagreements, fights in kindergarden, require
only one party to initiate. We all learned this many
years ago. Once initiated the other party(ies) must
decide how to respond.  To refrain from responding,
seems hold out the possibility of veering in the realm
of self-murder.

S. Vertigo,

Do I misread your message....it almost seemed, seemed
to have a hint of baiting others in it.  Please tell
me that I am mistaken.

All,

My original questions seem to remain unanswered though
we have started to discussed some of them:

My question is do we use the term murder for this
shooting or do we change the wikipedia article on
murder?

seems to be a question of wikipedia using its own
definitions for words at wikipedia.

is this type of internal consistency valuable?

if it is not should we make that known?

is using the term murder according to the wikipedia
definition POV?

Sincerely,

Lance6Wins

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Sean Barrett wrote:

> S. Vertigo wrote:
>
>> notice how some creeps use the phrase "enemies, foreign 'and domestic?'"
>> Domestic enemies?  So, now we must "be vigilant" and
>> keep watch out for "domestic enemies," eh? (Rebel scum?)
>
> We creeps include every person who ever served in any branch of the
> military forces of the United States.  We creeps swore that oath when
> we entered service to our country.

That presumes that you understood what the oath meant.  Who were the
"domestic enemies" at that time?

Ec


from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

body:
I think this is one of the bugs with the highest priority, people are
using all sorts of hacks to get around it currently:

1. using things like {| {{infobox_args}} ... in tables
2. Just making incorrect links and creating redirects for them
3. Manually creating thumbnails to use as images.

Isnt this just the kind of parser in use currently, it is possible to
do something like this in the bash shell for example:
$ echo $(($((2+2))+1+$(echo 1)))
6

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 01:21:09 +0200, Gabriel Wicke <lists at wikidev.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 23:30 +0100, Timwi wrote:
> > > Yes, by calling replaceInternalLinks twice ;-)
> >
> > Ouch.
>
> Not necessarily- it's more or less the fastest way to do this with a
> regex-based parser like the current MediaWiki one. The second call ist
> not expensive. Searches the entire text though..
> --
> Gabriel Wicke
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] murder versus kill

body:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:

>Harry Smith is right when he says:
>
>
>>To fail to differentiate between these two [murder and killing] is
>>to deprive the reader of information that is important.
>>
>>
>That is why, after reporting the straight news that militants killed an
>Arab youth, we ought to try and report some additional information.
>
I'm glad that you changed the reference to a "youth".  The previous
statements on this even made different assertions about his age.  Even
relatively innocent "facts" can be a basis for further confusion.

>If we can find someone on the scene or related to it, or who has a
>moral/legal point of view about it, then we can quote them.
>
>For example:
>
>* A statement by Fatah defended the killing as "regrettable but utterly
>necessary ... Anyone who gets in our way must die, it is the will of
>Allah." (totally made-up hypothetical statement)
>
>* A statement by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said: "These militants are
>animals, they murder anyone who gets in their way." (also hypothetical)
>
>Each of these sample statements provides the necessary information. One
>source says the killing was NOT murder, and the other source says it
>WAS.
>
They don't.  Both of these statements avoid responsibility by
attributing the comments to an organization.  What authority did the the
speaker have to represent Fatah policy?  Was the IDF statement taken
from an otherwise anonymous press release?

>The Wikipedia cannot, unfortunately, let the reader know which source is
>right but anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that side @#$ is
>usually right in these matters. (I'm not saying which bullet point @#$
>refers to...)
>
This sounds like POV argument by innuendo

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] murder versus kill

body:
--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> This sounds like POV argument by innuendo

Indeed it does.

> Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>
> >Harry Smith is right when he says:
> >
> >
> >>To fail to differentiate between these two [murder
> and killing] is
> >>to deprive the reader of information that is
> important.
> >>
> >>
> >That is why, after reporting the straight news that
> militants killed an
> >Arab youth, we ought to try and report some
> additional information.
> >
> I'm glad that you changed the reference to a
> "youth".  The previous
> statements on this even made different assertions
> about his age.  Even
> relatively innocent "facts" can be a basis for
> further confusion.
>
> >If we can find someone on the scene or related to
> it, or who has a
> >moral/legal point of view about it, then we can
> quote them.
> >
> >For example:
> >
> >* A statement by Fatah defended the killing as
> "regrettable but utterly
> >necessary ... Anyone who gets in our way must die,
> it is the will of
> >Allah." (totally made-up hypothetical statement)
> >
> >* A statement by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said:
> "These militants are
> >animals, they murder anyone who gets in their way."
> (also hypothetical)
> >
> >Each of these sample statements provides the
> necessary information. One
> >source says the killing was NOT murder, and the
> other source says it
> >WAS.
> >
> They don't.  Both of these statements avoid
> responsibility by
> attributing the comments to an organization.  What
> authority did the the
> speaker have to represent Fatah policy?  Was the IDF
> statement taken
> from an otherwise anonymous press release?
>
> >The Wikipedia cannot, unfortunately, let the reader
> know which source is
> >right but anyone with an ounce of common sense
> knows that side @#$ is
> >usually right in these matters. (I'm not saying
> which bullet point @#$
> >refers to...)
> >
> This sounds like POV argument by innuendo
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


subject: [WikiEN-l] murder versus kill

body:
Harry Smith wrote:

>--- "S. Vertigo" <sewev at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>No, its not about emotional undertone. "Murder" means
>>"wrongful immoral killing"; as in the Commandment
>>"Thou shall do no murder" usually misstated as "thou
>>shalt not kill"  This is the meaning of the word.
>>
>>
>S Vertigo is correct on this point.  I didnt want to
>bring this up lest we have folks who are not aware of
>this and a new diversionary arguments begins on this
>point.
>
I think that very few of us are in a position to navigate the subtleties
of translating Biblical Hebrew.

>>So why not just use the word murder in its general
>>sense? I agree its tempting to call all such killings
>>"murders" but nobody asks that we do so even-handedly
>>accross all topics for all non-accidental killing
>>(suicide, abortion, excecution, missile strikes,
>>collateral damage,), except for a very small number
>>of very strange people.
>>
>>
>Murder has an intentional aspect.
>
>Collateral damage is not murder for that reason, just
>as manslaughter is not murder.
>
So a group of bank robbers start shooting their guns.  Nobody in the
bank is killed, but an uninvolved passerby gets it from a stray bullet
when he is simply walking by outside.  There's likelihood of a murder
conviction there for that collateral damage.

>Missile strikes either hit the target populated by
>enemy combatants or become collateral damage, unless
>the intention is to target civilian populations.
>(this addresses both Major H. Schmidt and Qassam
>rocket attacks.  One can reach their own conclusions
>regarding Dresden. Thank God I was not issued that
>order.)
>
Schmidt disobeyed orders to hold his fire.

>Suicide is considered self-murder in a number of
>societies. Unlike other murders, I dont know of any
>that impose the death penalty for it however.
>
Civilized countries have repealed the death penalty.

>Execution is not "without lawful excuse" unless we are
>talking about the recent beheadings (murders) in Iraq
>regarding which the perpetrators prefer execution to
>murder.
>
Execution may have "lawful excuses" but few lawful reasons.

>Abortion is an issue about which numerous
>well-intentioned, well-respected individuals disagree.
>
Some argue that there is not yet a life there to be killed, so that
opens up an argument that is outside the scope of murder vs. killing.

>>Im tempted myself, but the use of
>>the term carries a disruptive POV element (local pov
>>vs other) that without other reason justifies its
>>disinclusion.
>>
>Example and further elucidation, please.
>
The fact that this debate is happening at all should be proof enough.

>>>Killing the enemy in time of war is an effective
>>>means of preventing your comrades and yourself
>>>
>>>
>>from being killed.  This distinction is important.
>>
>>But this can also be a soldiers rationalization, where
>>"enemy" can mean almost anyone (notice how some creeps
>>use the phrase "enemies, foreign 'and domestic?'"
>>Domestic enemies?  So, now we must "be vigilant" and
>>keep watch out for "domestic enemies," eh? (Rebel
>>scum?)  To pull apart your little statement, if an
>>"enemy" is, say, a whole race of people, is their
>>mass killing murder?
>>
Protecting one's comrades does have a certain justification in the
immediate circumstances.  The guilt arises from their both being there
in the first place.  Following orders did not absolve any of the
defendants at the Nuremberg trials

>Foreign enemies are often, not always, identified by
>uniform.  Domestic enemies are the province of law
>enforcement agencies rather than the military, unless
>during a state of emergency or an incident located on
>military property.
>
Where one country is trying to oppress another by applying overwhelming
military might, those acting in defense of their country from a position
of military weakness would be idiotic to wear uniforms.

>>To say that its "not technically a
>>crime called murder"; that would be simple avoidance
>>and denial of the issue. People in denail about
>>something cant or wont really participate in the
>>discussion.
>>
>Killing in war is not murder.  Neither technically nor
>ethically.
>
That only applies to the winning side.

>War, disagreements, fights in kindergarden, require
>only one party to initiate. We all learned this many
>years ago. Once initiated the other party(ies) must
>decide how to respond.  To refrain from responding,
>seems hold out the possibility of veering in the realm
>of self-murder.
>
When to stand up for one's rights is always a tough decision.  In modern
society those rights are often suppressed by other than direct action.
If carcinogens are released into the environment it may be years before
the effect follows the cause.

>My original questions seem to remain unanswered though
>we have started to discussed some of them:
>
>My question is do we use the term murder for this
>shooting or do we change the wikipedia article on
>murder?
>
That's a false dichotomy.

>seems to be a question of wikipedia using its own
>definitions for words at wikipedia.
>
>is this type of internal consistency valuable?
>
>if it is not should we make that known?
>
>is using the term murder according to the wikipedia
>definition POV?
>
>
The real issue is who has the right to make that decision?  Their are
obviously at least two POV's about whether there may have been a legal
excuse.

Ec


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Special:AskSQL

references:
<1370636.4qQF7LjVUm@mobil.md-d.org>
	<51dd1af80407252136efb2cbb@mail.gmail.com> <ce2kgi$g3d$2@sea.gmane.org>

body:
Either way you would get a lover load by just having admins on
lower-traffic projects run it rather than the admins on en. since
there are fewer of them, fair or not.

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 10:56:03 +0100, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> ?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason wrote:
>
> > Even if you dont enable that for en. due to load problems, could you
> > at least enable it for smaller wikipedias like is. pretty hard to bog
> > down the DB on a 4MB database, even with the most intensive queries,
> > would be a great maintenence tool.
>
> The argument against this has always been that with Special:AskSQL
> enabled on any Wikimedia project, you can access any DB for any other
> Wikimedia project. Personally, I don't know how, but maybe the relevant
> SQL syntax element could be filtered out to prevent this?
>
> Timwi
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Robert

subject: [WikiEN-l] No personal original research policy

body:
Recently someone has been searching for essays I have
written outside of Wikipedia, and has been trying to get
people to discuss them on a Talk page for a Wikipedia
article. I let this person know that Wikipedia is a project
to build a serious encyclopedia, and that Wikipedia does
not incorporate the personal ideas of people who happen to
contribute to it (even mine!) It is a longstanding policy
that Wikipedia does not accept personal original research.

However, this person has ignored this policy, and again
used a Wikipedia talk page to criticise and discuss a
personal essay of mine, which (a) is off-topic for the
specific article, (b) about personal original research, and
(c) being done to distract others from working on the
actual article itself.

I have removed the off-topic discussions about
non-allowable personal original research, but I am afraid
that they may be re-instated, with yet more policy
violations. Any suggestions?

Robert (RK)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Interwikilinks on Wikisource

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> It looks like none of the links to the various wikipedias from
> Wikisource are working any more.
>
> Ec

There has been no reply yet so I guess nobody noticed. :-)
This has affected all the links to the various Wikipedias on our author
pages.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l]  to defend the Constitution

body:
It is of course only human irony that, after lecturing
Lance6wins on the subject of NPOV terms, I chose to
use a word like "creeps." It was a poor choice, and I
here express my regret for it.

I was refering to how some use "domestic enemies," as
a euphemism to refer to "liberals" and "dissdents" and
anybody who doesnt agree with the militarist (and
military industrial) dogma and idolatry.

But I stipulate nothing; with full heart and sound
mind I do apologise to all for my careless choice of
terms. And further, for those of that oath who
understand the above distinction, for the unintented
implication that by mere oath they relinquish their
capacity for understanding such distinctions. Just as
it is wrong to blame the pacifist for the failures of
militarism, so too is it morally wrong to blame the
soldier for the poor leadership of his citizen
government.

Perhaps sometime we can discuss the distinciton
between defending the Constitution, and defending the
principles therin.

S

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


body:
--- Robert <rkscience100 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I have removed the off-topic discussions

Why?

S

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


body:
If it's a couple of talk pages, then either ignore it,
or, if it becomes a big deal, someone can delete the
pages, warn the users, and if, they chronically insist
on it, block them.
Which pages? Which users? I think the first step would
be for someone else to have a word with them about it.
Mark

--- Robert <rkscience100 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Recently someone has been searching for essays I
> have
> written outside of Wikipedia, and has been trying to
> get
> people to discuss them on a Talk page for a
> Wikipedia
> article. I let this person know that Wikipedia is a
> project
> to build a serious encyclopedia, and that Wikipedia
> does
> not incorporate the personal ideas of people who
> happen to
> contribute to it (even mine!) It is a longstanding
> policy
> that Wikipedia does not accept personal original
> research.
>
> However, this person has ignored this policy, and
> again
> used a Wikipedia talk page to criticise and discuss
> a
> personal essay of mine, which (a) is off-topic for
> the
> specific article, (b) about personal original
> research, and
> (c) being done to distract others from working on
> the
> actual article itself.
>
> I have removed the off-topic discussions about
> non-allowable personal original research, but I am
> afraid
> that they may be re-instated, with yet more policy
> violations. Any suggestions?
>
>
> Robert (RK)
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


from_name: Hacksprint

subject: [Wikitech-l] Custom tags

body:
Hello Wikimedia devlopers:

I was looking for a way to add a new custom tag to wikimedia.
I found a second of code that looked promising:

    # Create an HTML-style tag, e.g. <yourtag>special text</yourtag>
    # Callback will be called with the text within
    # Transform and return the text within
    function setHook( $tag, $callback ) {
        $oldVal = @$this->mTagHooks[$tag];
        $this->mTagHooks[$tag] = $callback;
        return $oldVal;
    }

Unfortunately setHook isn't used anywhere so I have no example
to work with and I don't know where the best place to insert the
hook from.  Anyone have any hints I could use?

Thanks

-John


from_name: Thomas R. Koll

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Special:AskSQL

references:
<1370636.4qQF7LjVUm@mobil.md-d.org>
	<51dd1af80407252136efb2cbb@mail.gmail.com>
	<ce2kgi$g3d$2@sea.gmane.org>
	<51dd1af80407290509e9233e2@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 12:09:54PM +0000, ?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason wrote:
> Either way you would get a lover load by just having admins on
> lower-traffic projects run it rather than the admins on en. since
> there are fewer of them, fair or not.

A new user-group and a 20 mintues IRC-questionary for those who want to
use SQL.
You have to prove that you know SQL and know what you shouldn't do with it.

ciao, tom
--
== Weblinks ==
* http://shop.wikipedia.org - WikiReader Internet zu kaufen
* http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:TomK32


body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Sean Barrett wrote:
>
>> S. Vertigo wrote:
>>
>>> notice how some creeps use the phrase "enemies, foreign 'and domestic?'"
>>> Domestic enemies?  So, now we must "be vigilant" and
>>> keep watch out for "domestic enemies," eh? (Rebel scum?)
>>
>>
>> We creeps include every person who ever served in any branch of the
>> military forces of the United States.  We creeps swore that oath when
>> we entered service to our country.
>
>
> That presumes that you understood what the oath meant.  Who were the
> "domestic enemies" at that time?

It presumes no such thing.  Why do you believe that a domestic threat to
the Constitution is impossible?


from_name: Stan Shebs

body:
Sean Barrett wrote:

> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> Sean Barrett wrote:
>>
>>> S. Vertigo wrote:
>>>
>>>> notice how some creeps use the phrase "enemies, foreign 'and
>>>> domestic?'"
>>>> Domestic enemies?  So, now we must "be vigilant" and
>>>> keep watch out for "domestic enemies," eh? (Rebel scum?)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We creeps include every person who ever served in any branch of the
>>> military forces of the United States.  We creeps swore that oath
>>> when we entered service to our country.
>>
>>
>>
>> That presumes that you understood what the oath meant.  Who were the
>> "domestic enemies" at that time?
>
>
> It presumes no such thing.  Why do you believe that a domestic threat
> to the Constitution is impossible?

Amen to that - for instance, I'd say the Bush administration poses
a dire threat to the Constitution, although I suppose it's a good
thing that military personnel don't take it upon themselves to
"defend the Constitution" by removing bad administrations. :-)

Stan


from_name: Edward Peschko

subject:
[Wikitech-l] wiki tech that has the fewest barriers to commercial
	printing

body:
hey all,

I was wondering - which form of wiki (the underlying tech) best supports commercial
typesetting and printing (ie: regular paperback and hardcover)? I'd like to be able
to produce either quark express documents or PDF.  I'd also like to embed either
encapsulated postscript or illustrator figures into the text, and perhaps produce
automated table of contents and/or indexes.

I'd very much like the technology to be open source/unix based, but unfortunately
the books I'm going to be producing can't be..  Hence, ideas on commercial
collaboration models would be appreciated as well.  I was thinking either editorial
credit, payment per article/chapter, or a percentage basis - but I was wondering if
people had experience with this...

Thanks much,

Ed


from_name: Christiaan Briggs

subject: [WikiEN-l] murder versus kill

body: test


body:
Christopher, what insight do you have that Vertigo was having a go at
Americans? Why, for instance, did you not ask him to refrain from
posting anti-power-elite vitriol?

Christiaan

On Jul 29, 2004, at 4:36 am, Christopher Larberg wrote:

> I'm not attempting to railroad this discussion off-track, but perhaps
> you could find better places to post your?sarcastically anti-American
> vitriol.
> -Slowking Man
> ----- Original Message -----
>  From: S. Vertigo
> To: English Wikipedia
> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 3:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Viajero/Zero and Lance6 - POV terms
>
> > Geoffrey Burling wrote:
> >> *President Bush, alleged cocaine abuser
> >> *The CIA allegedly sold drugs in Los Angeles to
> fund the Contras in Nicaraugua
>
> Hmm. It would seem to me that some would consider even
> the rather bland term "alleged" as biased. Maybe a
> 'less biased way' to put these might be:
>
> * President Bush, true patriot and a national
> treasure.
>
> * The CIA, according to nutcase conspiracy theorists,
> sold some contraband in Guatemala to help fund special
> covert operations against the communist threat.
>
> See, now isnt that so much better?
>
> S
>
Christiaan Briggs
--
Yurky Cross Chartered Architects
167a York Way,
London, N7 9LN
020 7267 0481
christiaan at yurkycross.co.uk
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1804 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040729/a8241f44/attachment.bin


subject: [WikiEN-l] Non-member message?

body:
When I tried to send messages to the list this morning I got the
message below (although when I re-subscribed it said I was already a
member). Any ideas as to why this happened?

Christiaan

> Your mail to 'WikiEN-l' with the subject
>
>     Re: [WikiEN-l] Viajero/Zero and Lance6 - POV terms
>
> Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.
>
> The reason it is being held:
>
>     Post by non-member to a members-only list
>
> Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive
> notification of the moderator's decision.  If you would like to cancel
> this posting, please visit the following URL:


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Custom tags

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> Hacksprint wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately setHook isn't used anywhere so I have no example
>> to work with and I don't know where the best place to insert the
>> hook from.  Anyone have any hints I could use?
>
>
> We've got a couple of extensions in CVS:
> http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/wikipedia/extensions/
>
> EasyTimeline and WikiHiero are in use on Wikipedia so should be in a
> reasonably working state.

Just to add to that, MediaWiki extensions are switched on by including
the PHP file from LocalSettings.php. When the file is included, it will
register an extension function, and the extension function will be
called back from Setup.php once the environment is fully initialised.
Inside the extension function, you can do things like adding parser
hooks and special pages.

-- Tim Starling


list: foundation-l

from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: fundraising page - shouldn't we note what we are
	aiming for?

body:
--- Ashar Voultoiz <thoane at altern.org> wrote on Wikipedia-l:
> Why not having a dynamic picture looking like:
>
>                   WikiPediaThon
>
>         0$        30k$                  100K$
> 	[OOOOoooooo......................]
>
> Where:
>   O is provision
>   o achieved
>   . still needed

Because there is currently no easy way to update such a bar and no way at all
to have those updates in real time. We also need to figure out where the goal
line should be set (hint to board: we need an approved budget).

But that would be an awesome thing to have, yes.

We might want to consider putting a bounty on creating a bot that could do
that. The person creating it would have to be *very* trusted and their bot code
vetted for security purposes (since it would be using account names and
passwords to gather data). But I think it could be done.

-- Daniel Mayer

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


list: wikimedia-l


subject:
[Foundation-l] fundraising page - shouldn't we note what we are
	aiming for?

body:
--- Marco Krohn <marco.krohn at web.de> wrote on Wikipedia-l:
> ....
> Following the first link I would like to suggest changing
> two things:
>
> * there still is a link to Brion Vibbers notebook fund at the very end of the
>
> page. Don't get me wrong, Brion deserves a lot more money than he probably
> gets through donations, but linking to a page which seems to be outdated
> doesn't look good to me.

The link now goes directly to a PayPal payment form instead of Brion's outdated
notebook fund page. I plan to add other developers in that section as well.
More changes and improvements are also planned for the new WMF website that
Brion is helping us set up.

> * the fundraising page doesn't contain information how much money we are
> aiming for. A potential donator would just see that we have ~20 K$ on our
> account and many probably will think "well, they probably have enough money".

That is because
1) We don't have an approved budget
2) This is not a real fund drive (the message is en.wikipedia specific)

Daniel Mayer,
Wikimedia CFO

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


from_name: Austin Hair

subject: [Wikipedia-l] send in the academics

body:
> "Academia" is the name for a huge institutionalized process of peer
> review.  Wikipedia is peer review on steroids, so you'd think that
> academics would be clamoring to contribute to Wikipedia, especially since
> academia and Wikipedia both love free expression and open discourse.  The
> difference is, academia is peer review with competition for prestige and
> resources, and Wikipedia is not.

You're absolutely correct, here.  Wikipedia is an individually thankless
project, and perhaps best so.

> If Wikipedia creates a space into which academic competition can expand,
> then scholars will fill it.  As soon as some scholars see a way to
> pad their CVs or increase their prestige in their field through
> contributing to Wikipedia, they will.
>
> How do you create a space where scholars can compete? Since the prizes in
> academia are relevance and prestige, and since relevance/presitge are
> measured by the number of people who are citing your work, Wikipedia could
>  allow users to cite scholarly works in articles, and track those
> citations competitively.  For example:

I can't say I like the idea of encouraging our editors to spend less
time editing articles and more time trying to come up with their
profound thesis for the month.  And to what end?  So one can cite his
own work in an article edit, or so others can cite the work of experts?
If the former, then I fail to see the point in this, and if the latter,
I ask why someone would publish on the Wiki if he isn't going to
otherwise contribute.

You don't need a self-standing complex of assertions and conclusions to
make a valid contribution to an article, and it's probably best if most
of our editors (not to be offensive) stick to adding key points to
articles where appropriate, rather than trying to branch out too far
into fields they aren't experts in

> - Allow users to upload read-only versions of their papers.

Wikipedia is not a Web host.  The entire point of a Wiki is to provide
for the open editing of content, and when this is negated, said content
may as well be on Geocities.

> - Give users the ability to cite and link to these uploaded read-only
> papers from within the text of the Wikipedia article.

This is already possible via off-site links, and ties in with the point
above.

> - The author of each paper should have his/her own profile.  This is where
> score is kept.  There you'll find:
> - the user's "Area of Expertise": a list of the Wikipedia articles which
> cite the user's papers.
> - A list of users who have similar Areas of Expertise, base.

Now you're talking about ranking an editor's usefulness in a formal way,
establishing a social hierarchy--something the community has resisted at
every stage thus far.

> Just as Wikipedians keep each other honest by checking each others' work,
> scholars (and non-academic Wikiepdians) will keep each other honest by
> reviewing each others' citations in articles.

Again, this is no different from the current system, except that we'd be
turning Wikipedia into a Web host.

> The first scholar to cite his work in a wikipedia article will be the
> expert on that subject.  But, there's no point in being an expert if no
> one knows about it, which is why word will spread, and others will follow.
>
> If a subject that applies to a scholar's work does not exist as an
> article, then the scholar will have an incentive to write it, in order to
> include his/her citation and increase or refine his/her area of expertise
> relative to others.  Since scholars who are similar can see each other,
> once a scholar writes a new article, the others can add their own
> citations, to stay competitive on those topics.

Again, why should we encourage this?

> Another way scholars can compete is by answering questions from users.
> Google's pay-per-use "Ask Google", is interesting, and useful, but
> terribly centralized.  If Wikipedia allowed users to ask questions to
> scholars through Wikipedia, then allowed users to rank the responses from
> scholars, then scholars could be ranked relative to each other based on
> their ability to answer questions in certain fields.  All questions and
> answers would be saved and searchable by keyword, or browseable by the
> articles it is categorized under, therefore available to other users.

This already exists, although the page in question wasn't initially
created for this reason: [[Wikipedia:Reference desk]].  The only thing
different about what you propose is the addition of a ranking
system--see above; "social hierarchy."

> The result would be information on scholars' areas of expertise and
> information on scholars' ability to answer questions in that area, which I
> think would be important information when competing for jobs.
>
> My basic assumption behind this is:  once academics have the opportunity
> to get credit for their work, in a way that ranks them competitively to
> others in their field, the will do so.
>
> What do you think?

See my comments above.  What you propose isn't in itself a bad idea,
and could be very well implemented as part of a project distinct from
Wikipedia, but I think it's entirely contrary to the direction the
community has been following.

> Abe

--
Austin D. Hair <austin at austinhair.org>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Callidus
http://www.austinhair.org/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040729/38acb6c8/attachment.pgp


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

body:
Bill Clark wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:52:24 +0100, Rowan Collins
> <rowan.collins at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>So they do... Question is, does anyone know how that *does* work?
>>[Parser.php is more than a little, um, opaque...]
>
>
> I haven't looked at it (and don't have time at this exact moment) but
> I imagine it's something like this:  Keep track of how deep you are
> nested within the [['s, and treat the | characters differently
> according to context.  If you're at the top level, a | character is a
> delimiter for that level, but if you're already nested inside another
> [[ level (i.e. you're inside a link) then treat the | character
> according to the piped-link interpretation.  Look for ]]'s to know
> when you should pop back out to the previous level/context.
>
> -Bill Clark

Hello,

That will be the way to do it using a tokenizer. Unfortunatly the
tokenizer is disabled for performance issue.

--
Ashar Voultoiz


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: nl:wiktionary now on UTF-8 :)

body:
Gerard.Meijssen wrote:

> Thanks to Shaihulud, who was so kind to do the technical biz while on
> holiday, nl:wiktionay is now on UTF-8. I have been adding new words that
> contain special characters and it works like a dream.

It seems that nl:wiktionary is declaring UTF-8 as its character set now,
but the article data is actually still in Latin-1. If you look at that
same page you quoted:

> http://nl.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nederlands

you get invalid characters. (Or you should, if your browser is
standards-compliant.)


body:
So in other words the code exists but is not currently enabled?

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 19:52:39 +0200, Ashar Voultoiz <thoane at altern.org> wrote:
> Bill Clark wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:52:24 +0100, Rowan Collins
> > <rowan.collins at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>So they do... Question is, does anyone know how that *does* work?
> >>[Parser.php is more than a little, um, opaque...]
> >
> >
> > I haven't looked at it (and don't have time at this exact moment) but
> > I imagine it's something like this:  Keep track of how deep you are
> > nested within the [['s, and treat the | characters differently
> > according to context.  If you're at the top level, a | character is a
> > delimiter for that level, but if you're already nested inside another
> > [[ level (i.e. you're inside a link) then treat the | character
> > according to the piped-link interpretation.  Look for ]]'s to know
> > when you should pop back out to the previous level/context.
> >
> > -Bill Clark
>
> Hello,
>
> That will be the way to do it using a tokenizer. Unfortunatly the
> tokenizer is disabled for performance issue.
>
> --
> Ashar Voultoiz
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


body:
Timwi wrote:

> Gerard.Meijssen wrote:
>
>> Thanks to Shaihulud, who was so kind to do the technical biz while on
>> holiday, nl:wiktionay is now on UTF-8. I have been adding new words
>> that contain special characters and it works like a dream.
>
> It seems that nl:wiktionary is declaring UTF-8 as its character set now,
> but the article data is actually still in Latin-1.

I take that back. It seems that other pages are fine. Apparently

> http://nl.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nederlands

is the only one affected. I'll try to fix it myself.

Timwi


body:
Camille Constans wrote:

>>you get invalid characters. (Or you should, if your browser is
>>standards-compliant.)
>
> Probably just a few pages in squid cache. Should be purged in few days.

Ooooh. Right. That explains everything. Thanks!


from_name: Abe

subject: [Wikipedia-l] send in the academics

body:
"Academia" is the name for a huge institutionalized process of peer
review.  Wikipedia is peer review on steroids, so you'd think that
academics would be clamoring to contribute to Wikipedia, especially since
academia and Wikipedia both love free expression and open discourse.  The
difference is, academia is peer review with competition for prestige and
resources, and Wikipedia is not.

If Wikipedia creates a space into which academic competition can expand,
then scholars will fill it.  As soon as some scholars see a way to
pad their CVs or increase their prestige in their field through
contributing to Wikipedia, they will.

How do you create a space where scholars can compete? Since the prizes in
academia are relevance and prestige, and since relevance/presitge are
measured by the number of people who are citing your work, Wikipedia could
 allow users to cite scholarly works in articles, and track those
citations competitively.  For example:

- Allow users to upload read-only versions of their papers.
- Give users the ability to cite and link to these uploaded read-only
papers from within the text of the Wikipedia article.
- The author of each paper should have his/her own profile.  This is where
score is kept.  There you'll find:
- the user's "Area of Expertise": a list of the Wikipedia articles which
cite the user's papers.
- A list of users who have similar Areas of Expertise, base.

Just as Wikipedians keep each other honest by checking each others' work,
scholars (and non-academic Wikiepdians) will keep each other honest by
reviewing each others' citations in articles.

The first scholar to cite his work in a wikipedia article will be the
expert on that subject.  But, there's no point in being an expert if no
one knows about it, which is why word will spread, and others will follow.

If a subject that applies to a scholar's work does not exist as an
article, then the scholar will have an incentive to write it, in order to
include his/her citation and increase or refine his/her area of expertise
relative to others.  Since scholars who are similar can see each other,
once a scholar writes a new article, the others can add their own
citations, to stay competitive on those topics.

Another way scholars can compete is by answering questions from users.
Google's pay-per-use "Ask Google", is interesting, and useful, but
terribly centralized.  If Wikipedia allowed users to ask questions to
scholars through Wikipedia, then allowed users to rank the responses from
scholars, then scholars could be ranked relative to each other based on
their ability to answer questions in certain fields.  All questions and
answers would be saved and searchable by keyword, or browseable by the
articles it is categorized under, therefore available to other users.

The result would be information on scholars' areas of expertise and
information on scholars' ability to answer questions in that area, which I
think would be important information when competing for jobs.

My basic assumption behind this is:  once academics have the opportunity
to get credit for their work, in a way that ranks them competitively to
others in their field, the will do so.

What do you think?

Abe


subject: [Wikitech-l] nl:wiktionary now on UTF-8 :)

body:
Yipeee !

Thanks to Shaihulud, who was so kind to do the technical biz while on holiday, nl:wiktionay is now on UTF-8. I have been adding new words that contain special characters and it works like a dream.

The other good news it that the current content is also really as it should be. So all the information copied from Timwi's website is really looking good. It also means that I can now add new content to other wiktionaries without fear of mucking things up. On that note, there is content on en:wiktionary that is not UTF-8 (English - see the edit page..)

The word that I have done first is Nederlands. :)
http://nl.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nederlands

Thanks,
  GerardMnt-Dispo


list: wiktionary-l

subject: [Wiktionary-l] nl:wiktionary now on UTF-8 :)


from_name: Vit Zvanovec

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Re: LanguageCs.php - reply to Ashar & Timwi

body:
 	Dear colleagues,
> > == LanguageCs.php ==
> > 1. Could anybody change these variables in the living copy of
> > LanguageCs.php?
> >
> > # There are no month abbreviations in Czech language.
> > /* private */ $wgMonthAbbreviationsCs = array("1.", "2.", "3.",
> > "4.", "5.", "6.", "7.", "8.", "9.", "10.", "11.", "12.");
> The english language use the first three characters of the month for
> abbreviations:
> /* private */ $wgMonthAbbreviationsEn = array(
>          'jan', 'feb', 'mar', 'apr', 'may', 'jun', 'jul', 'aug',
>          'sep', 'oct', 'nov', 'dec'
> );
	I know.

> Can you confirm Czech language really use numbers for that purpose?
	I can. There is a lot of examples:
http://www.abicko.cz/Clanek6602.htm
http://jyxo.cz/clanky/all-20040514
http://www.sovavsiti.cz/weblog/2003/12/31.html
...

> > # Czech ISBN servers
> > /* private */ $wgBookstoreListCs = array(
> > "N?rodn? knihovna" =>
> > "http://sigma.nkp.cz/F/?func=find-
a&find_code=WRD&request=&request_op=AND&find_code=WAU&request=&request_op=AND&find_code=WTL&request=&request_op=AND&find_code=WYR&request=&request_op=AND&find_code=WPB&request=&request_op=AND&find_code=ISN&request=$1");
> The bookstore is now in cvs and will reach wikipedia live site soon.
	Thank you.

> You change these by editing the Czech equivalent of en's
> [[Wikipedia:Book sources]].
	Really? IMHO this is only a text about book sources, not the
handling of ISBN in international wiki.

> > 2. How to force caching of special pages in :cs? There is
> > currently no cached page at all.
> Caching page, also known as misermode is managed in the server
> configuration. The normal (default) behaviour is to have special pages
> generated upon request, the cache is enabled when the wiki servers are
> under high load.
	But they are not. You can look at [[:cs:Speci?ln?:Wantedpages]].
Normally there should be something like that:
??douc? str?nky
Z Wikipedie, otev?en? encyklopedie.

Ukazuje 50 v?sledk? od ??sla 1.
Uk?zat (50 p?edchoz?ch) (50 n?sleduj?c?ch) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500).

1948 ( odkazy)
1945 ( odkazy)
1970 ( odkazy)
1981 ( odkazy)
1918 ( odkazy)

	In case of high load there should be something like that (before
the message was translated in MediaWiki):
??douc? str?nky
Z Wikipedie, otev?en? encyklopedie.

Sorry! This feature has been temporarily disabled because it slows the
database down to the point that no one can use the wiki.

Here's a saved copy from 17:33, 14. Dub 2004:

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

2003 ( odkazy)
1945 ( odkazy)
1918 ( odkazy)
1999 ( odkazy)
1990 ( odkazy)

	But nowadays there is *no* list at all.

> > 3. The upload log file is missing.
> The LanguageCs.php file in cvs use the following entries:
> 	"uploadlog"		=> "kniha nahr?vek ",
> 	"uploadlogpage" => "kniha_nahr?vek ",
>
> I removed the ending spaces, that should fix it once the new file
updated on the new site.
	OK. I'll see.

> > 4. To translate namespace Category into Kategorie. But there is
> > a lot of category pages in cs:, therefore they should be
> > automatically changed from [[Category:]] into [[Kategorie:]].
> The software should be able to understand both english and localised
> namespaces names.
	OK.

> While we are fixing it, can you please provide translations for the
> following entries ?
	OK.

	NS_TEMPLATE  		=> "Template",
	NS_TEMPLATE  		=> "?ablona", # Šablona

	NS_TEMPLATE_TALK  	=> "Template_talk",
	NS_TEMPLATE_TALK 	=> "?ablona_diskuse", #
Šablona_diskuse

	NS_HELP				=> "Help",
	NS_HELP				=> "N?pov?da", #
Nápověda

	NS_HELP_TALK		=> "Help_talk",
	NS_HELP_TALK		=> "N?pov?da_diskuse", #
Nápověda_diskuse

	NS_CATEGORY			=> "Category",
	NS_CATEGORY			=> "Kategorie",

	NS_CATEGORY_TALK	=> "Category_talk",
	NS_CATEGORY			=> "Kategorie_diskuse",

> > 5. [[:cs:Wikipedie:Co je ?l?nek]] can't be deleted.
	No reaction.

> > 6. Would it be useful to transfer All system messages in MediaWiki of
> > LanguageCs.php into the living copy of LanguageCs.php? Approximately
> > half of all messages is in MediaWiki which may slow down perfomance.
> System messages are set in the databases at installation and then
> cached in a big object. On page request the MediaWiki software just
> load that big object, if a change is made to a Mediawiki:something
> page, the database is updated and the big object is rebuild.
> I heard about a script to sync wikipedia.mediawiki entries and the
> languageXX.php files. I am not sure if anything have been done yet.

> *All* messages are in the MediaWiki namespace. Copying them into
> LanguageCs.php does not increase performance.
	Aha.

> > == Rendering of layout (presumable Standard) ==
> > 1. There is too much space between end of an external link and non-
> > space characters. For instance: [http://aa.bb.cc First]. is shown as
> > "First .", not as "First.".
> Please create an account on sourceforge and fill bug reports at
> http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=34373&atid=411192 They will be
> looked at as time allow (aka I am not going to fix them right now).

> This bug has already been fixed (by me :>). It just isn't live yet
	OK.

> > 2. All system messages (HTML) should have only 2 columns, because
there
> > is no difference between Default text and Current text.
> Default text is the text set in LanguageCs.php while current text is
> the one set in the big object cache (see above) and seen by users.
	If you look at [[:en:MediaWiki:All system messages]] in PHP, you
wiil see only one set of messages. If you look at [[:en:MediaWiki:All
system messages]] in HTML, you will see *no difference* in both columns.

> > 3. List of users (special pages) should distinguish between users
> > with their own pages (blue links) and without them (red links).
> Please create an account on sourceforge
	I've already had it.

> and fill bug reports at
> http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=34373&atid=411192 They will
> be looked at as time allow (aka I am not going to fix them right now).
	I'll do it.

	Yours truly,
		V?t Zv?novec, bureaucrat of :cs


from_name: Camille Constans

body:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 19:56:58 +0100
Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:

> Gerard.Meijssen wrote:
>
> > Thanks to Shaihulud, who was so kind to do the technical biz while on
> > holiday, nl:wiktionay is now on UTF-8. I have been adding new words that
> > contain special characters and it works like a dream.
>
> It seems that nl:wiktionary is declaring UTF-8 as its character set now,
> but the article data is actually still in Latin-1. If you look at that
> same page you quoted:
>
> > http://nl.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nederlands
>
> you get invalid characters. (Or you should, if your browser is
> standards-compliant.)

Probably just a few pages in squid cache. Should be purged in few days.

Shaihulud