body:
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 04:56:38PM -0500, Simetrical wrote:
> On 1/23/07, Tels <nospam-abuse at bloodgate.com> wrote:
> > Does that mean if I take a screeshot of "gcc -v" it is copyrighted? What if
> > I copy & paste that text, is it still copyrighted?
>
> I'd guess probably not, since it's purely informative and not what
> might be called creative expression.  But I don't really know.
>
> On 1/23/07, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> > Fair use of *what*?
>
> Of the software's graphical interface.  Positioning of elements and
> choosing exact designs (such as the type of curve, font and color
> selection, etc.) can be copyrightable.  Probably the element
> positioning alone isn't copyrightable, though . . . Word has a
> WordPerfect menu mode and vice versa, for instance, IIRC.

But a photograph/screenshot does not *use* those things.  It
illustrates them.  *A software library*, like QT, could *use* them, and
*it* would be subject to action if it ripped off Aqua, commercially.

But not a picture, fercrissakes.

> > Derivative is a word with a fairly specific definition as a term of art
> > in copyright law.  TTBOMK, only two very narrow categories of
> > things-you-can-photograph require care on the part of the photographer:
> > Fine Art, and architectural renderings (ie: fancy buildings :-)
>
> There is generally no distinction at all between fine art and any
> other creative work in US copyright law.

Is there a postcard photographer in the house!?!  :-)

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

subject: [Wikitech-l] License status of MW screenshots.

body:
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 11:51:53PM +0100, Lars Aronsson wrote:
> Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> > If I create a screenshot of a browser page on my computer displaying
> > wikipedia, there is *one* copyright involved: *mine*.  The image is not
> > a derivative work of the browser, the OS, or the website.  Therefore,
> > none of those people's copyrights apply, and therefore by induction, no
> > licenses are necessary.  I created an image, and I own its copyright.
>
> This is great news.  Now we can "view first page" in amazon.com,
> take a screenshot, and then upload that to Wikimedia Commons.
>
> Or perhaps you are just clueless.

Or perhaps you, and the people who wrote the policy are.

Are *you* an attorney specializing in intellectual property practice,
Lars?

If not, I'd recommend you pedal it back to "I believe you're incorrect",
instead of being attacking and insulting.

I saw no evidence that *any* such attorneys had been consulted in the
creation of the relevant paragraphs on Commons:Licensing.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274


list: wikien-l

from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Preloading template in new articles

body:
On 1/23/07, Mets501 <mets501wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> Would anyone object to preloading a references section in every new article?
> For example, when a user searches for a topic and clicks the big "Create
> this article" link, the user will be shown a page like this:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Testing...testing...testing
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Testing...testing...testing&actio
> n=edit&preload=Template:Article+starter>
> &action=edit&preload=Template:Article+starter.
>
>
>
> The text of this template is at [[Template:Article starter]].
>
>
>
> --Mets501

I'd much prefer it if we didn't do this, it seems kinda....I don't
know....assholeish. You know, shoving things down peoples throats. It
has an element of WP:BITE in it, I think. Also, I think it will be
fairly ineffective (people will simply ignore it, or be confused since
the comment tag is fairly obscure for the average user), and it will
mess with the "purity" of the edit box (not much of an argument, but
still ;)

Why not simply include it in the text that's above the edit box more
prominently? Like, bold it and make it 2 points bigger than the rest.

--Oskar


from_name: Simetrical

body:
On 1/23/07, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> But a photograph/screenshot does not *use* those things.  It
> illustrates them.  *A software library*, like QT, could *use* them, and
> *it* would be subject to action if it ripped off Aqua, commercially.
>
> But not a picture, fercrissakes.

Oh, surely it would be fair use in almost any circumstance.  It's
still copyrighted, technically.  The same is true for, e.g., photos
that incidentally contain copyrighted corporate logos in the
background, although there Commons/Wikipedia is willing to consider it
free.


body:
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 10:38:07PM -0500, Simetrical wrote:
> On 1/23/07, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> > But a photograph/screenshot does not *use* those things.  It
> > illustrates them.  *A software library*, like QT, could *use* them, and
> > *it* would be subject to action if it ripped off Aqua, commercially.
> >
> > But not a picture, fercrissakes.
>
> Oh, surely it would be fair use in almost any circumstance.  It's
> still copyrighted, technically.  The same is true for, e.g., photos
> that incidentally contain copyrighted corporate logos in the
> background, although there Commons/Wikipedia is willing to consider it
> free.

Certainly I agree it's copyrighted.  My assertion is that the copyright
vests in *me*, and that any infringement is via derivation.  I've just
posted the question on AskMe; it's the sort of thing they like to chew
on.  And I know there are some lawyers in the crowd.  Let's see what we
get.

And, incidentally, you cannot *copyright* a logo.  You trademark them.
And the rules for infringement on trademarks are much clearer than
copyright; they're pretty much bright-line.  Passing off, reverse
passing off, confusion, or denigration by association (as opposed to
editorial).

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274


body:
On 1/23/07, Mets501 <mets501wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> It already is included in the text above the edit box, but it's not enough.
> New users don't know how to add references, and therefore just ignore the
> whole thing.
>
> --Mets501

Which is another good point, this wont help any new users add
references. If they're not smart enough to see the big notice above
the edit-box, then they're probably not wiki-savvy enough to know what
the hell "==References==" or "<!-- --&mt;" means.

Still, my main argument still stands. It's condescending and rude, and
that's not how we should treat our new users, let alone our
experienced ones who are going to have to see that damn notice every
damn time they start an article. I just think that that is not the way
we should be treating new users.

I know I would never have joined if I had been greeted by a bunch of
reference-fanatic dudes who didn't have any patience with people who
didn't quite get how wikipedia works.

--Oskar


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 23/01/07, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:

> Still, my main argument still stands. It's condescending and rude, and
> that's not how we should treat our new users, let alone our
> experienced ones who are going to have to see that damn notice every
> damn time they start an article. I just think that that is not the way
> we should be treating new users.
> I know I would never have joined if I had been greeted by a bunch of
> reference-fanatic dudes who didn't have any patience with people who
> didn't quite get how wikipedia works.

Unfortunately, not doing so is likely to see their article zapped,
which is a much less n00b-friendly experience.

Yet another person just popped onto IRC asking how to create an
article that wouldn't get killed on sight. I said "write a few
paragraphs, add good references." "How should I format the
references?" "Not important. Just have them. Trust me - after dredging
through lame garage band articles on Special:Newpages, you'll cry at
the wikibeauty of an article that actually has its refs."

Surely it's polite to let them know rather than give great big warning
notices but no clues.

- d.


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Uploading images

body:
When was that picture taken?

Mgm

On 1/23/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> on 1/23/07 5:05 PM, ? Firefoxman at enwpmail at gmail.com wrote:
>
> > What is it?
>
>
> It is the photo of Kansas Governor Joan Finney. I'm wanting to add it to
> her
> Article page, and wasn't sure of the policy regarding that particular
> site.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Marc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Wanted Pages Wiki Page: How to add explanatory
	text to it

body:
On 23/01/07, Kutler, Christopher
<Christopher.Kutler at nationalarchives.gov.uk> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Apologies if this question has been answered before or that it is on the main Wikimedia FAQ and I've missed it, but could someone let me know how I can edit the Special Wiki Page called "Wanted Pages". I want to add a bit of explanatory text which explains the purpose of the Wanted Pages special page.

I would vote for editing MediaWiki:Wantedpages-summary .
Note you can find all MediaWiki pages listed in
[[Special:Allmessages]]. These are the pages you generally want to
edit to change how the interface looks.

cheers,
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise


from_name: Lars Aronsson

body:
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:

> If I create a screenshot of a browser page on my computer displaying
> wikipedia, there is *one* copyright involved: *mine*.  The image is not
> a derivative work of the browser, the OS, or the website.  Therefore,
> none of those people's copyrights apply, and therefore by induction, no
> licenses are necessary.  I created an image, and I own its copyright.

This is great news.  Now we can "view first page" in amazon.com,
take a screenshot, and then upload that to Wikimedia Commons.

Or perhaps you are just clueless.

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


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

subject:
[Wikitech-l] [MediaWiki-CVS] SVN: [19612]
	trunk/phase3/maintenance/cleanupSkin.php

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
<snip>
> hashar wrote:
>> This script pass through all users and change their skins from 'oldSkinName'
>> to 'newSkinName'. There is NO validation about the new skin existence!
>> Made on an original idea by Fooey (freenode)
>
> I would strongly recommend generalizing this to update any given option,
> rather than skins and nothing but skins.

Hello brion,

Duesentrieb asked for it too. I quickly wrote it to help an user on
#mediawiki (he wanted to remove a skin).

I think I will code another script that gives out statistics about
option usage then generalize cleanupSkin.php to something like
changeUserOptions.php adding filters (by groups, by last logged in, by
creation date ...).

Thanks for the support Brion =)

cheers,

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/
IM: hashar at jabber.org  ICQ: 15325080


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wikitech-l] MD5 Password Encryption

body:
Hoi,
Basic stuff that does not get done? To me the fact that all Marathi
projects are doing the localisation for EVERY of their project is
extremely basic. This is something that can be fixed. And if I can help
it, I will try to get it fixed in such a way that such situations will
not happen in the future. I am not a developer and I am busy as it is
doing other things to become one.

It is clear that the Wikimedia Foundation wants to extend the number of
developers. If I were doing the hiring I would particularly be
interested in people that make sure that the procedures are efficient ..
This would make sure that the valuable time of developers is spent as
little as possible on these type of things. It would also mean that
stupid anomalies as having people to learn developer procedures in order
to get their language supported would not exist. It is stupid because
supporting projects and their languages well is the second highest
priority after the continued service of our infrastructure. When both
these things work well, only then there would be room for new
functionality.

The next thing to consider is what has priority, the continued unabated
rush to get new functions in, or is it wise to stop including such
functionality until some of the projects that /are /prioritised by the
WMF become a reality. If this means that Brion does not do anything but
SUL for a month on new functionality until SUL gets done, it would be in
your interest to help him in order to get your stuff in production.

You make a comparison to Microsoft; in many ways MediaWiki is on the
other end of the spectrum when it comes to release management. Luckily
on both ends of the spectrum great things happen. Both the Windows and
the MediaWiki fan-boys have plenty to cheer about. Both have different
parts of the puzzle to make for an optimal product and both have
problems getting major new inventions integrated.

Thanks,
     GerardM

Rob Church schreef:
> On 23/01/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> simple. Some things that are important to me will not happen until AFTER
>> Single User Login. It is all well and good that everyone comes up with
>>
>
> Like what?
>
>
>> basic stuff does not get done. If this drives you mad, fine. Fix the
>> issue - help Brion implement SUL !
>>
>
> Is Wikimedia going to pay me to do it?
>
>
>> The promised date for SUL was end of January 2005. It is now a year late.
>>
>
> Well, thank god we're not operating on the Microsoft release cycle then.
>
>
> Rob Church
>


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2007-01-24

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

This is MediaWiki version 1.10alpha (r19620).

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

  18 still FAILING test(s) :(
      * URL-encoding in URL functions (single parameter)
      * URL-encoding in URL functions (multiple parameters)
      * TODO: Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)
      * TODO: Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)
      * TODO: message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)
      * TODO: message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)
      * BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled
      * TODO: HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)
      * TODO: HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)
      * TODO: HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)
      * TODO: HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)
      * TODO: Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting
      * TODO: Mixing markup for italics and bold
      * TODO: 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line
      * TODO: dt/dd/dl test
      * TODO: Images with the "|" character in the comment
      * TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, without trailing slash or name.
      * TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, with lots of extra trailing slashes.

Passed 489 of 507 tests (96.45%)... 18 tests failed!


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Troubling news on Citizendium

body:
Fastfission wrote:

>On 1/18/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>If America
>>is indeed the great melting pot, what indeed is the point of classifying
>>African-American literature as something separate from plain old
>>American literature.
>>
>>
>Well, nobody has really called America the great melting pot earnestly
>for some time now (see [[melting pot]]).
>
What does it say now that Bush used the term in his State of the Union
speech? ;-)

Ec


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Gosh darn it,
	those spammers^Wmarketers will show us what for

body:
http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/01/campaign-to-reduce-wikipedias-pagerank-to-zero.html

I'm quaking in my boots.

- d.


body:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 03:30:24PM +1100, Stephen Bain wrote:
> So which of these two things that you've said are correct, because
> they seem completely incompatible to me:
>
> On 1/24/07, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> > If I create a screenshot of a browser page on my computer displaying
> > wikipedia, there is *one* copyright involved: *mine*.
>
> On 1/24/07, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> > And as an end-user, you can do with any of those things anything you
> > want to, as long as you don't try to distribute them, make money off
> > them, or explicitly claim them as your own.

Well, Stephen, I don't know, because you've clipped too much of your
second quote, and it's not clear to me which "any of these things" I
meant.

Wait one.

I was specifically talking about textures the end-user in question
wanted to lift off of WoW.  I don't see that that conflicts in any way
with my first assertion, nor do I think it's internally inconsistent.

> If there's only one copyright in a screenshot, as you assert, then how
> do all of those restrictions come into play? Or are you saying that
> whoever created the software/etc only has copyright until I take a
> picture of their work?

I don't believe I said any of those things.

> If I draw a picture of something, and you come along and take a
> photograph of it, then by your reasoning you would own the copyright
> in it. What happened to my copyright? Did it magically disappear when
> you took the picture?

Nope.  Your hand-drawn picture is a piece of creative work in which you
own copyright.  Referring to Bridgeman, which *does* apply to this
circumstance, though I'm still not convinced it's generally applicable
because I haven't read the case -- the summary suggests it doesn't
cover enough to apply generally to the issue on point -- if I made a
photograph of your drawing which was purposefully a clean reproduction
with no artistic modification, then any copyright that would inhere in
my photograph would be yours.

If, however, I took a picture of you standing next to your framed
drawing hanging on your wall, there would most certainly be
copyrightable expression in my photograph that was not solely
derivative of your copyright in your work.

> In reality, I still have my copyright in the picture, and your
> photograph is a derivative work, which in the absence of a licence for
> you to create derivative works, I also own the copyright to.

*To the extent that there's no creative input of mine in my
photograph*.

> It's widely accepted that screenshots of software/etc is exactly the
> same as this.

Shepardize?

>                  If A owns the copyright in software/etc, and B takes a
> picture of it, then in the absence of a licence permitting B to use
> the software/etc to create derivative works, A owns the copyright in
> the picture. What your rights are when you take a picture is
> determined by what licence you had to use the original thingy you took
> a picture of.

I assert that a copyright in the *program code* to Microsoft Word does
*not* constitute a copyright in *the millions of different possible
visual displays that program could produce* -- especially when you
consider that those displays can differ markedly based on the choices
of system fonts and color themes chosen by the computer's operator.

You got any cases that suggest that interpretation is incorrect?

Statutes, even?

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Nofollow back on URL links on en.wikipedia.org
	articles for now

body:
On 1/24/07, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks. I need to peruse [[Special:Specialpages]] a bit more, it seems.

See also: [[m:Help:Special page]], which gives a bit more detail on
the various pages.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Special_page

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


body:
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:

>On 1/23/07, Mets501 <mets501wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It already is included in the text above the edit box, but it's not enough.
>>New users don't know how to add references, and therefore just ignore the
>>whole thing.
>>
>>
>Which is another good point, this wont help any new users add
>references. If they're not smart enough to see the big notice above
>the edit-box, then they're probably not wiki-savvy enough to know what
>the hell "==References==" or "<!-- --&mt;" means.
>
>Still, my main argument still stands. It's condescending and rude, and
>that's not how we should treat our new users, let alone our
>experienced ones who are going to have to see that damn notice every
>damn time they start an article. I just think that that is not the way
>we should be treating new users.
>
>I know I would never have joined if I had been greeted by a bunch of
>reference-fanatic dudes who didn't have any patience with people who
>didn't quite get how wikipedia works.
>
Absolutely.  But the rule-mongers that like this sort of thing.  Any
kind of sensible human relations have to take second place to this kind
of petty imposed order.

Perhaps it should be made clear to the newbies that since form is more
important than substance it does not matter whether the reference has
anything to do with what they are writing.

Ec


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.9.1 released

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

January 24, 2007

This is a bug-fix update that fixes some installation and upgrade issues
with the original 1.9.0 release.

* (bug 3000) Fall back to SCRIPT_NAME plus QUERY_STRING when REQUEST_URI
is not available, as on IIS with PHP-CGI
* Security fix for DjVu images. (Only affects servers where .djvu file
uploads are enabled and $wgDjvuToXML is set.)
* (bug 8638) Fix update from 1.4 and earlier
* (bug 8641) Fix order of updates to ipblocks table for updates from <=1.7
* (bug 8673) Minor fix for web service API content-type header
* Fix API revision list on PHP 5.2.1; bad reference assignment
* Fixed up the AjaxSearch
* Exclude settings files when generating documentation. That could
expose the database user and password to remote users.
* ar: fix the 'create a new page' on search page when no exact match found
* Correct tooltip accesskey hint for Opera on the Macintosh (uses
Shift-Esc-, not Ctrl-).
* (bug 8719) Firefox release notes lie! Fix tooltips for Firefox 2 on
x11; accesskeys default settings appear to be same as Windows.

Full release notes:
http://svn.wikimedia.org/svnroot/mediawiki/tags/REL1_9_1/phase3/RELEASE-NOTES

Download:
http://download.wikimedia.org/mediawiki/1.9/mediawiki-1.9.1.tar.gz
http://download.wikimedia.org/mediawiki/1.9/mediawiki-1.9.1.patch

MD5 checksum:
89f77d8f39fbefa4325e0fe4d06746c7  mediawiki-1.9.1.tar.gz
e9e3785068f9edc6169c4215bc65eff0  mediawiki-1.9.1.patch

SHA-1 checksum:
11418c10ac59c044ece1cc0dd20a32c74b96ec86 mediawiki-1.9.1.tar.gz
6eaf11390c1aaea87ff48d798f7fe564a341f249 mediawiki-1.9.1.patch

PGP signatures:
http://download.wikimedia.org/mediawiki/1.9/mediawiki-1.9.1.tar.gz.sig
http://download.wikimedia.org/mediawiki/1.9/mediawiki-1.9.1.patch.sig

Before asking for help, try the FAQ:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:FAQ

Low-traffic release announcements mailing list:
(Please subscribe to receive announcements of security updates.)
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce

Wiki admin help mailing list:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l

Bug report system:
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/

Play "stump the developers" live on IRC:
#mediawiki on irc.freenode.net

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFtyKJwRnhpk1wk44RAmIQAJsH/xB/lV+/gFHAbhEVWsXv1yoMLgCfWChB
r3LSI7FwfucNJ4qOliFJ8QA=
=rKzE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: SJ

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Wikiworld : Di Filippo's genius (and the world in 2040)
	takes a collaborative turn

body:
Paul Di Filippo turns out a delightful wiki sendup in "Wikiworld", his
contribution to the short story anthology "Fast Forward 1: Future
Fiction from the Cutting Edge".

The print book isn't out yet, but his story is.  And it's for everyone
who has ever been part of a wiki, proposed changes to a national
referendum, or become a local jimmywhale.

http://www.pyrsf.com/chapters/WikiWorld.htm

http://www.amazon.com/Fast-Forward-Future-Fiction-Cutting/dp/1591024862

++SJ


subject:
[WikiEN-l] [[Ecma Office Open XML]] and [[OpenDocument]] - good
	editors needed

body:
On 24/01/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/24/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> > talking to the Microsoft OOXML guys. Doug Mahugh from MS is on the
> > talk page, and does understand that editing the article himself would
> > be a conflict of interest and the talk page is the right place to edit
> > from.

> So we've definitely settled on the idea that interested parties can't
> edit articles?

Or that it's probably a really bad idea. We worked this out as a
useful way to go forward in this case.

>In this case, I wouldn't actually see a problem: any
> person with a reputation to protect isn't going to be stupid enough to
> write blatantly partisan material in the spotlight of thousands of
> readers.

You'd think Microsoft would know better than to think this was a good
idea in the first place, but ah well. We all learn as we go.

- d.


from_name: Bryan Derksen

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> I don't agree with the method, but I certainly can agree with the sentiment.
> It's totally inappropriate to punish all the good links that made Wikipedia
> great just to get rid of a few spammers.

Links don't make Wikipedia great, the encyclopedic content within
Wikipedia itself makes it great. Most of the time the stuff in the
external links section could vanish without diminishing the value of the
article in a significant way.

> We should develop more effective spam control rather than targetting all the
> links as one.

Internal links and interwiki links are still exempt from nofollow so we
already don't target all links as one. Further refinement is of course
possible but whether it's worth the effort is another question. If we
had version flagging I could see a distinction being made on that basis,
but other than that I can't think of anything that'd be particularly
easy to code.


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject:
[WikiEN-l] How to stop Encyclopedia Dramatica from making
 attack articles on us

body:
. wrote:
> As you know, Encyclopedia Dramatica has attack articles on many
> Wikipedians.
>
Geez, how can you even tell? The place looks like a teenager's bedroom,
probably not coincidentally.  I don't see how any ISP would take any of
the random ravings seriously.

Also, it's useful as a motivator  for here - WP would look like that if
all the vandal fighters went on wikibreak for a month. :-)

Stan


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 00:27:49 +0000, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
wrote:

>http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/01/campaign-to-reduce-wikipedias-pagerank-to-zero.html
>I'm quaking in my boots.

So you should be.  Wikipedia would be *nothing* without all the spam
and backlinks from blogs.  The content of the encyclopaedia is only to
add stickiness, isn't it?

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


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] MD5 Password Encryption

body:
On 23/01/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Basic stuff that does not get done? To me the fact that all Marathi
> projects are doing the localisation for EVERY of their project is
> extremely basic. This is something that can be fixed. And if I can help

Yes, I agree; in fact, if you'd been in the #mediawiki IRC channel
within the first few days of this month, you would have noticed I
mentioned something about, "it would be great if we had regular
updates for *every* language by the end of the year."

> The next thing to consider is what has priority, the continued unabated
> rush to get new functions in, or is it wise to stop including such
> functionality until some of the projects that /are /prioritised by the

People work on what interests them. Would you reject new functionality
and piss off your volunteer coders, or would you rather say, "hey,
cool...now, do you reckon you could...?"

> WMF become a reality. If this means that Brion does not do anything but
> SUL for a month on new functionality until SUL gets done, it would be in
> your interest to help him in order to get your stuff in production.

Actually, if I'm blunt; I have little or no interest in single user
login. And it's not in my interest to do anything I don't want to do,
which is why I asked the question, "Is Wikimedia going to pay me for
it?" Unless there's a fat cheque coming my way, I'm not going to even
consider it, because if I were to put a foot out of line and make a
mistake while doing it, I'd probably be ripped to shreds.

Rob Church


body:
On 24/01/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't agree with the method, but I certainly can agree with the sentiment.
> It's totally inappropriate to punish all the good links that made Wikipedia
> great just to get rid of a few spammers.
> We should develop more effective spam control rather than targetting all the
> links as one.

As noted, it's a Simple Matter of Coding ...

- d.


from_name: Anthony

subject: [Wikitech-l] MD5 Password Encryption

body:
On 1/23/07, Ivan Krsti? <krstic at solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu> wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
> > Single User Login is a pretty useless feature.  It was a neat dream
> > back in 2001 or whenever passport.com came out, but it really is
> > rather useless. [...] You know, Firefox (like probably all the other
> > browsers) has this nifty feature that stores your username and
> > password for each site, so you only have to type in your password
> > once.
>
> SUL isn't generic SSO. Clearly, you have little or no understanding of
> the kind of problems that SUL is trying to fix or the benefits it would
> bring, so I'm not sure why you thought it was a good idea to embarrass
> yourself on a public list by backing ignorance with invective.
>
Spoken like a true crackpot.  I don't think your little dream idea is
useful or manageable so I must not understand it.

> You aren't entitled to getting your desired MediaWiki features
> implemented by other people. If the current development model or pace
> bother you, either focus on your power animal and find the patience to
> wait some more, or start posting patches.
>
I never claimed to be entitled to anything.  I guess I implied that
I'm entitled to make fun of the poor implementation of a dumb idea on
this list, though.  And hey, I am.

Anthony


from_name: Brian Salter-Duke

body:
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 10:51:22AM -0500, Mets501 wrote:
> Would anyone object to preloading a references section in every new article?
> For example, when a user searches for a topic and clicks the big "Create
> this article" link, the user will be shown a page like this:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Testing...testing...testing
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Testing...testing...testing&actio
> n=edit&preload=Template:Article+starter>
> &action=edit&preload=Template:Article+starter.
>
>
>
> The text of this template is at [[Template:Article starter]].

Why not add <references/> as well. I'm always forgetting to check
whether it is there before editing a section and adding refs.

>
>
> --Mets501
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------

--
          Brian Salter-Duke            b_duke at bigpond.net.au
               [[User:Bduke]]  mainly on en:Wikipedia.
           Also on fr: Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki and Wikiversity


subject: [Wikitech-l] MD5 Password Encryption

body:
Nick Jenkins schreef:
>> The next thing to consider is what has priority, the continued unabated
>> rush to get new functions in, or is it wise to stop including such
>> functionality until some of the projects that /are /prioritised by the
>> WMF become a reality.
>>
>
> But a significant number of features are written by people who are volunteers.
> Try telling volunteers that "the WMF has not prioritized that feature", and
> see what happens!
>
>
Both Brion and Tim are no volunteers, it is perfectly reasonable for the
WMF to indicate that specific things have a priority. This may mean that
people do not get their attention with what they volunteered to develop
at the moment they are done with it, it would be perfectly reasonable.
Because not only developers are volunteers. You make it as if it is you
developers that dictate what happens. As to Brion's time, you can only
get so many pork chops out of a pig. :)
>> If this means that Brion does not do anything but
>> SUL for a month on new functionality until SUL gets done, it would be in
>> your interest to help him in order to get your stuff in production.
>>
>
> If you want SUL done, and you take a "means-justify-the-ends" approach, then the
> best approach is probably to kidnap him, fly him to Antarctica, with a laptop,
> various test boxen, a supply of tea, and dump him by himself in an isolated
> hut with adequate power & food, but no internet connection whatsoever, and no
> phones, no post (i.e. no way of communicating with the outside world) and no
> other responsibilities _whatsoever_ besides doing SUL, and don't release him
> until it's done.
>
This would be completely and utterly insane. As I indicated before, the
first priority is the continued running of the services. With Brion and
or Tim flown to Antartica, these services are likely to suffer a lot.
Then and only then comes new functionality including SUL.
> Failing that, stop asking so few people to do so much stuff, and then acting
> surprised when the non-urgent items get pushed back. For me, the remarkable
> thing is not that SUL isn't done, but rather that anything has been done
> about SUL at *all*.
>
We surely disagree on what has urgency, to me the first thing after what
has already been given priority is the needed improvement of the basic
running of the localisation for languages like Marathi. It is ridiculous
to consider  that things that are "nice to have" are given priority when
things that are manifestly broken are not fixed. Given that the
Wikimedia Foundation claims that it is important that people are able to
edit in their language, the consequence is that this is given priority.
Failing to do so is what is considered to be discrimination.

Given that Brion is the release manager, he is the one who has to look
at the code that Nikerabbit has produced. It has to be accepted and
implemented. It is code that is there, it needs his stamp of approval.
When you think that all what you produce in code should have priority
over what will help operationally on the most basic level, please explain.

Thanks,
    GerardM


body:
On 1/22/07, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/22/07, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 1/23/07, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 1/20/07, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> > > > Having been requested by Jimmy to do so, and having seen a fun rumor of
> > > > a "search engine optimization world championship" contest targeting
> > > > WP[1], I've gone ahead and switched rel="nofollow" back onto URLs in
> > > > en.wikipedia.org's article namespace.
> > >
> > >
> > > Does Jimmy have that authority? Should this have  gone through the board?
> > > Did it?
> >
> I asked three specific questions, which so far as I know Anthony and
> Oskar can't directly answer except through (reasonable) surmisal.
>
Why ask the list, if you think we can't answer the question?  Because
the 4 or 5 people who can answer happen to be on the list?

Moreover, what is the question?  Does Jimmy have the authority to
request something of someone else?  Of course he does.  We all do.
Free speech and everything.  Was Brion required under his employment
contract to do it?  I doubt it, but that one I guess you'd have to ask
him for the answer.  Should this have gone through the board?  That's
really a philosophical question, which anyone could answer, but I
don't really know if I think it should have or not.  Did it?  I guess
only the board knows for sure, but I haven't seen any resolutions
passed over it.

Anthony


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
2007/1/24, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com>:

> > If I draw a picture of something, and you come along and take a
> > photograph of it, then by your reasoning you would own the copyright
> > in it. What happened to my copyright? Did it magically disappear when
> > you took the picture?
>
> Nope.  Your hand-drawn picture is a piece of creative work in which you
> own copyright.  Referring to Bridgeman, which *does* apply to this
> circumstance, though I'm still not convinced it's generally applicable
> because I haven't read the case -- the summary suggests it doesn't
> cover enough to apply generally to the issue on point -- if I made a
> photograph of your drawing which was purposefully a clean reproduction
> with no artistic modification, then any copyright that would inhere in
> my photograph would be yours.
>
> If, however, I took a picture of you standing next to your framed
> drawing hanging on your wall, there would most certainly be
> copyrightable expression in my photograph that was not solely
> derivative of your copyright in your work.

Watch your use of the word 'solely'. If it is a slavish copy, it's the
copyright of the original author. If it is just a minor thing on a larger
photograph, it is copyright of the photographer (with the image being fair
use or some similar defense). In cases in-between, there might well be a
double copyright - when you make that picture in such a way that (say) the
picture is half of the photograph, and then someone goes and publishes that
photograph, he might well be infringing on BOTH your AND my copyright.

> In reality, I still have my copyright in the picture, and your
> > photograph is a derivative work, which in the absence of a licence for
> > you to create derivative works, I also own the copyright to.
>
> *To the extent that there's no creative input of mine in my
> photograph*.

No, to the extent that the  photograph is a derivative work of the picture.

>                  If A owns the copyright in software/etc, and B takes a
> > picture of it, then in the absence of a licence permitting B to use
> > the software/etc to create derivative works, A owns the copyright in
> > the picture. What your rights are when you take a picture is
> > determined by what licence you had to use the original thingy you took
> > a picture of.
>
> I assert that a copyright in the *program code* to Microsoft Word does
> *not* constitute a copyright in *the millions of different possible
> visual displays that program could produce* -- especially when you
> consider that those displays can differ markedly based on the choices
> of system fonts and color themes chosen by the computer's operator.

Well, there must be a creative act on the side of Microsoft and its
programmers. Whether there are such decisions of any importance, or the
choices are all either caused by the nature of being a text editor or
otherwise non-creative, is something for the judge to decide - although the
more likely outcome, I think, would be that the judge finds "no reasonable
case of damage". Actual speaking in favor of Microsoft would probably only
have chances if the outlook of Microsoft Word would be copied quite
precisely by another text editor program.

You got any cases that suggest that interpretation is incorrect?
>
> Statutes, even?
>

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


body:
On 1/24/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> Should this have gone through the board?  That's
> really a philosophical question, which anyone could answer, but I
> don't really know if I think it should have or not.

On second thought, in my opinion no it shouldn't have gone through the
board.  The Wikimedia board should handle the much larger
mission-critical issues, not whether or not nofollow is enabled on
Wikipedia.

Anthony


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
I don't agree with the method, but I certainly can agree with the sentiment.
It's totally inappropriate to punish all the good links that made Wikipedia
great just to get rid of a few spammers.
We should develop more effective spam control rather than targetting all the
links as one.

Mgm

On 1/24/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 00:27:49 +0000, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/01/campaign-to-reduce-wikipedias-pagerank-to-zero.html
> >I'm quaking in my boots.
>
> So you should be.  Wikipedia would be *nothing* without all the spam
> and backlinks from blogs.  The content of the encyclopaedia is only to
> add stickiness, isn't it?
>
> Guy (JzG)
> --
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Extension request: Greenlist

body:
On 1/24/07, Andrew Cates <andrew at catesfamily.org.uk> wrote:
> Therefore, could I put in a request for a "greenlist" feature to allow
> sysop approved links to be generated without rel="nofollow"?

There are well over 8 million external links in enwiki alone,
including well over a half million distinct domains via HTTP.

A greenlist is not a remotely sane solution because of this...

Sane solutions are, however, possible.

I would suggest that any proposed feature interact with whatever
version flagging system we end up implementing. I don't believe that
will likely be sufficient since the the proposal most likely to be
implemented just provides us with a not-vandalized flag... which
doesn't do much to indicate that any member of the editing community
has actually reviewed the link (and pure time limits are even worse in
that regard).  Just keep in mind that anything proposed must scale,
and it must be robust against editing (special text that only admins
can insert is not robust against editing... for example, a non admin
couldn't revert page blanking on a page that had special text links).


from_name: Rory Stolzenberg

subject: [Wikitech-l] Latest Talk updates

body:
On 1/24/07, Emanuel Nordrum <solers at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is it possible to display, in list format, what talk pages have been most
> recently updated? I have a fairly small group of people working on my
> wiki,
> and it would be great to make it easy for everyone to navigate to the
> latest
> discussions.
>
> Alternatively, is it possible to make a link specify a recent changes
> namespace? I.e. I put up a link in the toolbar called "Latest Discussions"
> which linked to Special:Recentchanges&namespace=1 (I also tried the full
> URL), but neither worked. As I'm a newb, I'm sure there's something I'm
> just
> missing. Any ideas?
>
>
> Emanuel
>
> --
> "The best journalism is the first draft of history."
> - John Pilger
>
> GWwiki: http://www.hackwurld.com/gwwiki

http://www.hackwurld.com/gwwiki/index.php?title=Special%3ARecentchanges&namespace=1works
for me. You can't use a wikilink like
[[Special:Recentchanges&namespace=1]], though, you have to use fullurl,
IIRC.


body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> I'm not talking about the content value of the links. I'm talking about how
> the traffic from the sites who link us in return got us where we are.

I don't see how that's going to change significantly, people will still
link to Wikipedia articles if they find them useful. The threats of a
handful of irate spammers aren't going to affect that.


body:
On 1/24/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/24/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > You'd think Microsoft would know better than to think this was a good
> > idea in the first place, but ah well. We all learn as we go.
>
> I'm curious whether you mean that in terms of public perception, or
> whether it would actually work. I sort of feel that for any article
> which has not achieved some state of perfection (ie, complete NPOV
> coverage), then anyone paying someone to add material is probably not
> that harmful. If the article *was* bad, and biased, than the other
> side paying someone to "correct the balance" is probably a good thing,
> isn't it? Even if they overshoot the mark and make the bias point the
> other way, the article probably ends up closer to where we're trying
> to get to than it was already.
>
> But I accept that public perception of conflict of interest is a
> sensitive issue and shouldn't be treated lightly.
>
> Steve

I'm not sure if this will even end up getting us closer to NPOV. There are
already people calling (at least on IRC) for the deletion of some Microsoft
related articles, saying they're astroturfing (though of course they have no
proof or even reason to think that MS is paying anybody besides Jelliffe,
and they're not talking about XML related articles. I fear that we'll lose
some good content in a backlash against Microsoft because of this.


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 24/01/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not talking about the content value of the links. I'm talking about how
> the traffic from the sites who link us in return got us where we are.

Broke?

- d.


from_name: Jeff Raymond

body:
. wrote:

> A whois lookup on these shows they comes from colo4dallas.com and a
> traceroute finds cogentco.com as the next closest hop. This means the
> email addresses to report abuse to are now: abuse at colo4dallas.com,
> support at colo4dallas.com, abuse at cogentco.com
>
> If we get enough reports in, they may shut down their site.

As someone who was an insider for a while, that won't happen.  They know
full well what they're doing, and they wouldn't move to a new host if it
wasn't going to serve their purposes.

-Jeff

--
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com
WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the
	Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else."
	- Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.


from_name: geni

body:
On 1/23/07, Sage Ross <sage.ross at yale.edu> wrote:
> I like this one:
> http://www.smomashup.com/how-wikipedia-killed-the-internets/2007/01/23/
>
> The complaint is that, once the (barely notable) entry on [[Social
> Media Optimization]] stops giving PageRank value to the blog-post
> origin of the term, then the Wikipedia article will surpass the blog
> entry as the first Google result for "social media optimization".
> Breaks my heart.
>

It's not quite that simple. It is true that our actions are likely to
be mildly dissruptive on the wider net but even our more power mad
admins generaly don't think we should be policeing the web.

We are not a links directory which is one of the problems with various
ideas to selectively turn off no follow. If we do that we are basicaly
admiting we are a links directory and we would gain very little for
doing so.

--
geni


from_name: Simetrical

body:
On 1/23/07, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> And, incidentally, you cannot *copyright* a logo.  You trademark them.

That's not true.  Logos, in general, are both copyrighted and
trademarked.  Here's the first link I found:

http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/faq/copyright/logos.htm

Also, I happen to know that both the WMF and Mozilla explicitly claim
copyright (as well as trademark) on their logos, in case that
interests you.

> If, however, I took a picture of you standing next to your framed
> drawing hanging on your wall, there would most certainly be
> copyrightable expression in my photograph that was not solely
> derivative of your copyright in your work.

"Solely the derivative"?  There's nothing "solely" in derivatives.  By
their very nature, they're shared copyrights: he owns the base work
(the drawing), you own the derivative aspects (the angle, positioning,
etc.).  Both of you have exclusive rights to the resulting derivative
work (i.e., either can "exclude" the other from distributing it),
barring things like fair use and de minimis.

> I assert that a copyright in the *program code* to Microsoft Word does
> *not* constitute a copyright in *the millions of different possible
> visual displays that program could produce* -- especially when you
> consider that those displays can differ markedly based on the choices
> of system fonts and color themes chosen by the computer's operator.

After reviewing a summary of Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer%2C_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corp.>,
I would agree with this statement, but not your conclusion.  The
*program code* has little, if anything, to do with it.  The issue is
mainly the *icons*, and other specific display elements.

For instance, consider
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Microsoft_Office_Word_2007.png>.
In the upper left, there's some funky four-colored icon of interlocked
squares.  Copyrighted.  Next to it there's a drawing of a floppy disk.
 Copyrighted (although the concept isn't, the exact image is).  Below
it there's a clipboard, over to the right there are two interlocked
A's.  All copyrighted images.

Similarly, it seems not unlikely that the precise choices of font,
positioning, and decoration for the various menus and so on are
copyrighted.  A general "look and feel" is not, and neither is the
positioning of the elements themselves (which is basically
utilitarian), but the precise choice of colors and fonts is definitely
a creative exercise that can easily make the difference between visual
attractiveness and unattractiveness.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] How to stop Encyclopedia Dramatica from making
	attack articles on us

body:
. wrote:
> A whois lookup on these shows they comes from colo4dallas.com and a
> traceroute finds cogentco.com as the next closest hop. This means the
> email addresses to report abuse to are now: abuse at colo4dallas.com,
> support at colo4dallas.com, abuse at cogentco.com
>
> If we get enough reports in, they may shut down their site.

I still think that we should get as many people as possible to sent abuse
reports; it would be especially great if the people who were attacked sent
in the reports.  Even if it might not work, we can still try.
--Mets501


from_name: The Cunctator

body:
On 1/24/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 1/24/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > Should this have gone through the board?  That's
> > really a philosophical question, which anyone could answer, but I
> > don't really know if I think it should have or not.
>
> On second thought, in my opinion no it shouldn't have gone through the
> board.  The Wikimedia board should handle the much larger
> mission-critical issues, not whether or not nofollow is enabled on
> Wikipedia.
>
Makes sense to me.


body:
On 1/24/07, Ligulem <ligulem at pobox.com> wrote:
> "sysop approved" links?
>
> Sysops are choosen by consensus. How can that consensus be expanded to
> "can choose external non-nofollow links by own discretion"?

They already choose whether to spam-blacklist particular links.

> Sysop approved edits?
> Requests for article edits?

{{editprotected}}


body:
I remember a warning that was in massive red letters above an edit box.
I also remember the AFC preload template.

Both are still effectively ignored.

I don't think it BITEs people. It helps them become familiar with
requirements so they don't get bitten for not citing their sources later.

Mgm

On 1/23/07, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/23/07, Mets501 <mets501wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Would anyone object to preloading a references section in every new
> article?
> > For example, when a user searches for a topic and clicks the big "Create
> > this article" link, the user will be shown a page like this:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Testing...testing...testing
> > <
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Testing...testing...testing&actio
> > n=edit&preload=Template:Article+starter>
> > &action=edit&preload=Template:Article+starter.
> >
> >
> >
> > The text of this template is at [[Template:Article starter]].
> >
> >
> >
> > --Mets501
>
> I'd much prefer it if we didn't do this, it seems kinda....I don't
> know....assholeish. You know, shoving things down peoples throats. It
> has an element of WP:BITE in it, I think. Also, I think it will be
> fairly ineffective (people will simply ignore it, or be confused since
> the comment tag is fairly obscure for the average user), and it will
> mess with the "purity" of the edit box (not much of an argument, but
> still ;)
>
> Why not simply include it in the text that's above the edit box more
> prominently? Like, bold it and make it 2 points bigger than the rest.
>
> --Oskar
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On 1/24/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> Perhaps it should be made clear to the newbies that since form is more
> important than substance it does not matter whether the reference has
> anything to do with what they are writing.
>
> Ec

Actually, it does matter. References need to back up what you've written. It
might be harder to check, but I'd mcuh rather check if a source is accurate
than to check if one even exists. I totally agree with David Gerard. Having
an article deleted is really a lot less noob friendly than asking for
sources to avoid it.

How to format sources really doesn't matter. Formatting is an easy fix for
experienced editors.
Just having them is a step in the right direction.

Mgm


body:
On 1/24/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> > I don't agree with the method, but I certainly can agree with the
> sentiment.
> > It's totally inappropriate to punish all the good links that made
> Wikipedia
> > great just to get rid of a few spammers.
>
> Links don't make Wikipedia great, the encyclopedic content within
> Wikipedia itself makes it great. Most of the time the stuff in the
> external links section could vanish without diminishing the value of the
> article in a significant way.

I'm not talking about the content value of the links. I'm talking about how
the traffic from the sites who link us in return got us where we are.

Mgm


body:
On 1/24/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/01/campaign-to-reduce-wikipedias-pagerank-to-zero.html
>
> I'm quaking in my boots.
>
>
> - d.
>
heh one of them has come right out and given a reason for this:

1. Wikipedia is a give / take thing. you give your effort and in
return you are rewarded with something which will help you in the
search engine rankings with Google and possibly the other major
engines.

http://www.sepguy.com/2007/01/23/5-reasons-wikipedia-is-doomed.html

--
geni


from_name: Thomas Dalton

body:
> > Perhaps it should be made clear to the newbies that since form is more
> > important than substance it does not matter whether the reference has
> > anything to do with what they are writing.
>
> Actually, it does matter. References need to back up what you've written.

I think you'll find Ray was being sarcastic...


body:
> It's not quite that simple. It is true that our actions are likely to
> be mildly dissruptive on the wider net but even our more power mad
> admins generaly don't think we should be policeing the web.

I don't know... we have some pretty power mad admins...


from_name: · Firefoxman

subject: [WikiEN-l] New Test Templates

body:
Oh well...

On 1/24/07, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
> > Rory Stolzenberg schreef:
> >> On 1/22/07, Myles Gray <MylesGray_33 at msn.com> wrote:
> >>> Will someone please explain to me why the new test templates have a
> number
> >>> one in front of it?
> >> See
> >>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_on_user_warning_layout_standardisation&oldid=92676384
> >
> > Right. So it is to make these templates more useful for book-keeping,
> and
> > to make them look less like personal communication.
> >
>
> Of course, in the Good Old Days, they were SUPPOSED to look like
> personal communication, for those of us too lazy to write custom
> messages each time...
>
> --
> Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
> Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
> "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
> Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>

--
-Firefoxman


body:
What is it? I looked it up on WP but it was deleted. The site is
blocked<http://www.arlington.k12.va.us/filter.html?URL=http://encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Main_Page&IP=158.59.199.125&CAT=GPORN&USER=DEFAULT>at
my school, so I cannot check the site.

On 1/24/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> . wrote:
> > As you know, Encyclopedia Dramatica has attack articles on many
> > Wikipedians.
> >
> Geez, how can you even tell? The place looks like a teenager's bedroom,
> probably not coincidentally.  I don't see how any ISP would take any of
> the random ravings seriously.
>
> Also, it's useful as a motivator  for here - WP would look like that if
> all the vandal fighters went on wikibreak for a month. :-)
>
> Stan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
-Firefoxman


from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

body:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 09:17:56AM +0100, Andre Engels wrote:
> > If, however, I took a picture of you standing next to your framed
> > drawing hanging on your wall, there would most certainly be
> > copyrightable expression in my photograph that was not solely
> > derivative of your copyright in your work.
>
> Watch your use of the word 'solely'. If it is a slavish copy, it's the
> copyright of the original author. If it is just a minor thing on a larger
> photograph, it is copyright of the photographer (with the image being fair
> use or some similar defense). In cases in-between, there might well be a
> double copyright - when you make that picture in such a way that (say) the
> picture is half of the photograph, and then someone goes and publishes that
> photograph, he might well be infringing on BOTH your AND my copyright.

I don't know *precisely* how that line is drawn in copyright cases, but
yes, I understand your point.  Of course, being derivative is sort of
like being pregnant; I'm not sure you can do it "a little bit".

> > In reality, I still have my copyright in the picture, and your
> > > photograph is a derivative work, which in the absence of a licence for
> > > you to create derivative works, I also own the copyright to.
> >
> > *To the extent that there's no creative input of mine in my
> > photograph*.
>
> No, to the extent that the  photograph is a derivative work of the picture.

I believe those to be functionally equivalent, but yes, you're right.

> >                  If A owns the copyright in software/etc, and B takes a
> > > picture of it, then in the absence of a licence permitting B to use
> > > the software/etc to create derivative works, A owns the copyright in
> > > the picture. What your rights are when you take a picture is
> > > determined by what licence you had to use the original thingy you took
> > > a picture of.
> >
> > I assert that a copyright in the *program code* to Microsoft Word does
> > *not* constitute a copyright in *the millions of different possible
> > visual displays that program could produce* -- especially when you
> > consider that those displays can differ markedly based on the choices
> > of system fonts and color themes chosen by the computer's operator.
>
> Well, there must be a creative act on the side of Microsoft and its
> programmers.

Oh, certainly.  But those are incidental to the primary purpose of the
program.

>              Whether there are such decisions of any importance, or the
> choices are all either caused by the nature of being a text editor or
> otherwise non-creative, is something for the judge to decide - although the
> more likely outcome, I think, would be that the judge finds "no reasonable
> case of damage". Actual speaking in favor of Microsoft would probably only
> have chances if the outlook of Microsoft Word would be copied quite
> precisely by another text editor program.

Sure.  But again, an affirmative ruling in such a case would be
tantamount to ruling that indeed, a software manufacturer automaticall
got -- without filing for it -- copyright in the appearance(s) of a
program automagically when copyrighting the code -- and since the
appearance depends on the *OS* much more than the program itself, I
don't think *that's* reasonable either.

Certainly, getting a test case to go in a reasonable direction here
would require having, oh, say, Larry Lessig try it... :-)

Hey.  I'll ask *him*.  He ought to be equipped to have an opinion...
(and, along eith Eben Moglen, inclined to give it).

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274


body:
Encyclopaedia Dramatica would definitely fall under Obscene/Tasteless and
Pornography
It's basically just a nonsense attack site, mostly on high-profile
Wikipedians
--Mets501

-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of . Firefoxman
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:31 AM
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How to stop Encyclopedia Dramatica from making
attack articles on us

What is it? I looked it up on WP but it was deleted. The site is
blocked<http://www.arlington.k12.va.us/filter.html?URL=http://encyclopediadr
amatica.com/index.php/Main_Page&IP=158.59.199.125&CAT=GPORN&USER=DEFAULT>at
my school, so I cannot check the site.

On 1/24/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> . wrote:
> > As you know, Encyclopedia Dramatica has attack articles on many
> > Wikipedians.
> >
> Geez, how can you even tell? The place looks like a teenager's
> bedroom, probably not coincidentally.  I don't see how any ISP would
> take any of the random ravings seriously.
>
> Also, it's useful as a motivator  for here - WP would look like that
> if all the vandal fighters went on wikibreak for a month. :-)
>
> Stan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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


body:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 10:47:48AM -0500, Simetrical wrote:
> On 1/23/07, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> > And, incidentally, you cannot *copyright* a logo.  You trademark them.
>
> That's not true.  Logos, in general, are both copyrighted and
> trademarked.  Here's the first link I found:
>
> http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/faq/copyright/logos.htm
>
> Also, I happen to know that both the WMF and Mozilla explicitly claim
> copyright (as well as trademark) on their logos, in case that
> interests you.

I'll look again; I've been told that logos are protected by trademark
for lots of years.

You can claim anything, and your lawyers will recommend you do.

> > If, however, I took a picture of you standing next to your framed
> > drawing hanging on your wall, there would most certainly be
> > copyrightable expression in my photograph that was not solely
> > derivative of your copyright in your work.
>
> "Solely the derivative"?  There's nothing "solely" in derivatives.  By
> their very nature, they're shared copyrights: he owns the base work
> (the drawing), you own the derivative aspects (the angle, positioning,
> etc.).  Both of you have exclusive rights to the resulting derivative
> work (i.e., either can "exclude" the other from distributing it),
> barring things like fair use and de minimis.

*Assuming such a work is, in fact, derivative*.

> > I assert that a copyright in the *program code* to Microsoft Word does
> > *not* constitute a copyright in *the millions of different possible
> > visual displays that program could produce* -- especially when you
> > consider that those displays can differ markedly based on the choices
> > of system fonts and color themes chosen by the computer's operator.
>
> After reviewing a summary of Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer%2C_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corp.>,
> I would agree with this statement, but not your conclusion.  The
> *program code* has little, if anything, to do with it.  The issue is
> mainly the *icons*, and other specific display elements.

Yup.  But those are incidental to the program, since they could be
supplied by any desktop manager.  That seems to me equivalent to Harley
Davidson trying to trademark the sound of a V-twin engine, which is
incidental to the operation of that engine design.

They were turned down, BTW; Supreme Court, as I recall.

> For instance, consider
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Microsoft_Office_Word_2007.png>.
> In the upper left, there's some funky four-colored icon of interlocked
> squares.  Copyrighted.  Next to it there's a drawing of a floppy disk.
>  Copyrighted (although the concept isn't, the exact image is).  Below
> it there's a clipboard, over to the right there are two interlocked
> A's.  All copyrighted images.

Are they, indeed, copyrightable?  They're functional icons, and they
aren't practically subject to a lot of changeability without people not
being able to figure out what they mean.

The average user would likely confuse them with the similar icons in
other programs.

> Similarly, it seems not unlikely that the precise choices of font,
> positioning, and decoration for the various menus and so on are
> copyrighted.  A general "look and feel" is not, and neither is the
> positioning of the elements themselves (which is basically
> utilitarian), but the precise choice of colors and fonts is definitely
> a creative exercise that can easily make the difference between visual
> attractiveness and unattractiveness.

And as I noted before, *that is in the hands of the person who themed a
particular workstation (or the default theme for the OS)* -- it's
almost *explicitly* not in the hands of the writers of the word
processor.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274


body:
On 1/24/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> You shouldn't judge a group based on the rantings of a single clueless
> individual.
>

I've seen the sentiment reflected elsewhere.

None of this appears to be moveing outside the SEO community mind.

--
geni


body:
Do they have any real content at all?

On 1/24/07, Mets501 <mets501wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Encyclopaedia Dramatica would definitely fall under Obscene/Tasteless and
> Pornography
> It's basically just a nonsense attack site, mostly on high-profile
> Wikipedians
> --Mets501
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikien-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of . Firefoxman
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:31 AM
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How to stop Encyclopedia Dramatica from making
> attack articles on us
>
> What is it? I looked it up on WP but it was deleted. The site is
> blocked<
> http://www.arlington.k12.va.us/filter.html?URL=http://encyclopediadr
> amatica.com/index.php/Main_Page&IP=158.59.199.125&CAT=GPORN&USER=DEFAULT
> >at
> my school, so I cannot check the site.
>
> On 1/24/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > . wrote:
> > > As you know, Encyclopedia Dramatica has attack articles on many
> > > Wikipedians.
> > >
> > Geez, how can you even tell? The place looks like a teenager's
> > bedroom, probably not coincidentally.  I don't see how any ISP would
> > take any of the random ravings seriously.
> >
> > Also, it's useful as a motivator  for here - WP would look like that
> > if all the vandal fighters went on wikibreak for a month. :-)
> >
> > Stan
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -Firefoxman
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
-Firefoxman


from_name: Omegatron

body:
If we're going to preload an "article skeleton" for new articles, what else
are we going to include?  Sections?   See also and External links?  Sample
images?  Templates?  Categories?  Infoboxes?

On 1/23/07, Mets501 wrote:
>
> It already is included in the text above the edit box, but it's not
> enough.
> New users don't know how to add references, and therefore just ignore the
> whole thing.

Sounds like a problem with the referencing system...


from_name: Keitei

body:
On Jan 24, 2007, at 11:31, ? Firefoxman wrote:

> What is it? I looked it up on WP but it was deleted. The site is
> blocked<http://www.arlington.k12.va.us/filter.html?URL=http://
> encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/
> Main_Page&IP=158.59.199.125&CAT=GPORN&USER=DEFAULT>at
> my school, so I cannot check the site.

Trying to be as NPOV as possible, Encyclopedia Dramatica is meant to
be a humor site. It originated from LJ drama (which was a bit of a
fiasco for those involved, if I remember correctly), and thus has
always allowed and encouraged articles on livejournal users and
internet personas. Wikipedians are fair game. Their humor style tends
towards the "tasteless": shock images, profanity, and obscene mental
images. Some people find this funny; I don't happen to, but it's
their business. They do have "real" content, that is content on real
world things, but most of their articles last I checked were internet
related.

As for knocking them off their host, I don't think Wikipedia ever
would be or should be involved in this. If different people want to
initiate this, that's their business. Doesn't seem to be appropriate
for a Wikipedia mailing list, but that's just my opinion.

--keitei


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:33:48 +0100, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm"
<macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:

>I don't agree with the method, but I certainly can agree with the sentiment.
>It's totally inappropriate to punish all the good links that made Wikipedia
>great just to get rid of a few spammers.

In what way is it punishing them?  Authoritative sites don't need our
help to get their pagerank up, and if being linked from the world's
largest information resource is not enough of an endorsement then what
is?

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


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [Wikitech-l] Loss of session data

body:
Yep, looks exactly like that.

On 1/23/07, Titoxd at Wikimedia <titoxd.wikimedia at gmail.com> wrote:
> That sounds like Bug 8340:
>
> http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8340


body:
On 1/24/07, Mets501 <mets501wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> Would anyone object to preloading a references section in every new article?
> For example, when a user searches for a topic and clicks the big "Create
> this article" link, the user will be shown a page like this:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Testing...testing...testing
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Testing...testing...testing&actio
> n=edit&preload=Template:Article+starter>
> &action=edit&preload=Template:Article+starter.

This has been proposed before, several times. Can I suggest that if we
do this, we put a lot of thought into the template, *before*
inflicting it on everyone. It should be really intuitive and
self-explanatory, and *not annoying*. Also, disablable (opt-out or
opt-in) for registered users.

If you want to see how well the "provide wikitext to a new user and
get them to customise it" thing really works out, just look at the
crud that newbies at WP:AFC generate.

Steve


body:
You shouldn't judge a group based on the rantings of a single clueless
individual.

Mgm

On 1/24/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/24/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/01/campaign-to-reduce-wikipedias-pagerank-to-zero.html
> >
> > I'm quaking in my boots.
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> heh one of them has come right out and given a reason for this:
>
> 1. Wikipedia is a give / take thing. you give your effort and in
> return you are rewarded with something which will help you in the
> search engine rankings with Google and possibly the other major
> engines.
>
> http://www.sepguy.com/2007/01/23/5-reasons-wikipedia-is-doomed.html
>
>
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On 1/24/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> talking to the Microsoft OOXML guys. Doug Mahugh from MS is on the
> talk page, and does understand that editing the article himself would
> be a conflict of interest and the talk page is the right place to edit
> from.

So we've definitely settled on the idea that interested parties can't
edit articles? In this case, I wouldn't actually see a problem: any
person with a reputation to protect isn't going to be stupid enough to
write blatantly partisan material in the spotlight of thousands of
readers.

Steve


body:
Sarcastic? Please forgive me for not noticing the invisible sarcasm-tags. My
eyes probably need rechecking anyway. ;P

Mgm

On 1/24/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Perhaps it should be made clear to the newbies that since form is more
> > > important than substance it does not matter whether the reference has
> > > anything to do with what they are writing.
> >
> > Actually, it does matter. References need to back up what you've
> written.
>
> I think you'll find Ray was being sarcastic...
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wikitech-l] MD5 Password Encryption

body:
Rob Church schreef:
> On 23/01/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Basic stuff that does not get done? To me the fact that all Marathi
>> projects are doing the localisation for EVERY of their project is
>> extremely basic. This is something that can be fixed. And if I can help
>>
>
> Yes, I agree; in fact, if you'd been in the #mediawiki IRC channel
> within the first few days of this month, you would have noticed I
> mentioned something about, "it would be great if we had regular
> updates for *every* language by the end of the year."
>
Great to know that more people feel strongly about this.. :)
>
>> The next thing to consider is what has priority, the continued unabated
>> rush to get new functions in, or is it wise to stop including such
>> functionality until some of the projects that /are /prioritised by the
>>
>
> People work on what interests them. Would you reject new functionality
> and piss off your volunteer coders, or would you rather say, "hey,
> cool...now, do you reckon you could...?"
>
Why reject new functionality? That is NOT what I want to see happen. Not
at all. What I want to see happen is that certain things come to
conclusion. It is awful when because some developer made something that
is pretty things that are basic functionality have to wait. I would not
reject new functionality, I would give it its priority and this means
that it will gets assessed and implemented at the appropriate time. The
problem is that Brion does not scale and neither does Tim.
>
>> WMF become a reality. If this means that Brion does not do anything but
>> SUL for a month on new functionality until SUL gets done, it would be in
>> your interest to help him in order to get your stuff in production.
>>
>
> Actually, if I'm blunt; I have little or no interest in single user
> login. And it's not in my interest to do anything I don't want to do,
> which is why I asked the question, "Is Wikimedia going to pay me for
> it?" Unless there's a fat cheque coming my way, I'm not going to even
> consider it, because if I were to put a foot out of line and make a
> mistake while doing it, I'd probably be ripped to shreds.
>
There are plenty of other BASIC things that need doing. Getting the
Marathi localisation from the Marathi Wikipedia is just one. As you
agree that getting the localisation for all our languages having regular
updates, it needs some work to get the language files for ALL languages
a language file and make sure that the procedure for new languages
includes the creation of a language file. It makes the ground fertile
for when Brion has the time to check out the BetaWiki software.

Thanks,
     GerardM


from_name: Andrew Cates

body:
Regardless of rel="nofollow" the current whitelist and blacklist
features which are used across languages anyway will still be needed.

Therefore, could I put in a request for a "greenlist" feature to allow
sysop approved links to be generated without rel="nofollow"?

If it is hard to do directly (and I cannot see an easy way), an
acceptable alternative is the creation of http://greenlist.wikipedia.org
under interwiki which autodiverts:

http://greenlist.wikipedia.org /first-string/second-string to
http:///first-string/second-string for any /first-string/ on a greenlist.

It seems to me inevitable that this feature will be wanted sooner or
later on en, and will be useful for other implementations so doing it
sooner rather than later is preferable...

BozMo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BozMo


from_name: Matthew Brown

body:
I would personally be very surprised if being linked to by Wikipedia
adds much value to a site in the first place - I'm sure Google
long-ago worked out that spammers spam Wikipedia with links.
Wikipedia itself is high-ranked, but I doubt much magic gets passed
on.

-Matthew


from_name: Phil Sandifer

body:
On Jan 24, 2007, at 11:58 AM, Omegatron wrote:

> If we're going to preload an "article skeleton" for new articles,
> what else
> are we going to include?  Sections?   See also and External links?
> Sample
> images?  Templates?  Categories?  Infoboxes?
>
> On 1/23/07, Mets501 wrote:
>>
>> It already is included in the text above the edit box, but it's not
>> enough.
>> New users don't know how to add references, and therefore just
>> ignore the
>> whole thing.
>
>
> Sounds like a problem with the referencing system...

There are two problems here.

1) The referencing system is non-intuitive, and a first-time editor
can't use it. I still don't know how the fuck to use it, and have
always found it to have a terrible interface from a reader's
standpoint as well. And for good measure, I just read [[WP:CITE]],
which is a godawful instruction manual.

2) A casual editor who comes upon a mistake or a redlink is going to
fix it from their personal knowledge, not references. This is a
larger problem I've observed before - our demand for references
fundamentally runs counter to the idea of "you can edit this page
right now" in practice. We have to get realistic about references
before we can get serious about them.

-Phil


subject: [WikiEN-l] New Test Templates

body:
On Jan 24, 2007, at 10:47 AM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

> Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
>> Rory Stolzenberg schreef:
>>> On 1/22/07, Myles Gray <MylesGray_33 at msn.com> wrote:
>>>> Will someone please explain to me why the new test templates
>>>> have a number
>>>> one in front of it?
>>> See
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
>>> title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_on_user_warning_layout_standardisation&o
>>> ldid=92676384
>>
>> Right. So it is to make these templates more useful for book-
>> keeping, and
>> to make them look less like personal communication.
>>
>
> Of course, in the Good Old Days, they were SUPPOSED to look like
> personal communication, for those of us too lazy to write custom
> messages each time...

Yes, well, this was before we decided that vandalism was an epic
problem that required a special task force to deal with it.

Which is another entry on the growing list of "problems that have
been left to fester long enough on Wikipedia that they're going to
require drastic solutions.

-Phil


body:
?? Firefoxman wrote:
> Do they have any real content at all?
>
> On 1/24/07, Mets501 <mets501wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Encyclopaedia Dramatica would definitely fall under Obscene/Tasteless
>> and
>> Pornography
>> It's basically just a nonsense attack site, mostly on high-profile
>> Wikipedians
>> --Mets501

They handle web memes better than we do in terms of accuracy, maybe not as
much as taste.  Their "attacks" on Wikipedians constitute a minimal amount
of their content, albeit more than what was there when I was a
contributor.  Most of their content revolves around LiveJournal.

-Jeff


from_name: Steve Summit

body:
Mgm wrote:
> On 1/24/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>> Links don't make Wikipedia great, the encyclopedic content within
>> Wikipedia itself makes it great. Most of the time the stuff in the
>> external links section could vanish without diminishing the value of the
>> article in a significant way.
>
> I'm not talking about the content value of the links. I'm talking about how
> the traffic from the sites who link us in return got us where we are.

Sure.  And I agree: it is not fair to allow one's pagerank to
be increased by all the links to you which various people make,
without also increasing the pagerank of all the various pages you
link back out to.  But the spammers don't play fair, either, and
we're in a war with them.  I bemoan the collateral damage of the
non-followed, non-spammy external links as much as the next guy,
and I hope that better, more selective spam-control mechanisms
can be deployed in the long run, but in the short run, we'd be
crazy to let linkspammers run roughshod over our external links
sections, to allow them to hijack our high pagerank in promoting
their grotty little sites.

But with that said, I have to agree with Bryan: Wikipedia is not
great because it has high pagerank.  It is great because it has
great content.  Personally, I think Wikipedia's pagerank is too
high: Wikipedia results tend to swamp the first page of many of
the Google searches I do, to the detriment of the other sites
I might also want to find.  If the "boycott" as any effect, it
won't bother me, or hurt Wikipedia, at all.


from_name: Nick Jenkins

subject: [Wikitech-l] MD5 Password Encryption

body:
> The next thing to consider is what has priority, the continued unabated
> rush to get new functions in, or is it wise to stop including such
> functionality until some of the projects that /are /prioritised by the
> WMF become a reality.

But a significant number of features are written by people who are volunteers.
Try telling volunteers that "the WMF has not prioritized that feature", and
see what happens!

> If this means that Brion does not do anything but
> SUL for a month on new functionality until SUL gets done, it would be in
> your interest to help him in order to get your stuff in production.

If you want SUL done, and you take a "means-justify-the-ends" approach, then the
best approach is probably to kidnap him, fly him to Antarctica, with a laptop,
various test boxen, a supply of tea, and dump him by himself in an isolated
hut with adequate power & food, but no internet connection whatsoever, and no
phones, no post (i.e. no way of communicating with the outside world) and no
other responsibilities _whatsoever_ besides doing SUL, and don't release him
until it's done.

Failing that, stop asking so few people to do so much stuff, and then acting
surprised when the non-urgent items get pushed back. For me, the remarkable
thing is not that SUL isn't done, but rather that anything has been done
about SUL at *all*.

All the best,
Nick.


body:
On 1/24/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2) A casual editor who comes upon a mistake or a redlink is going to
> fix it from their personal knowledge, not references.

This was, in fact, the original intended process for writing articles, no?
With enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow?  That's the whole concept behind
the wiki/open source thing that the project is based on.  References were an
afterthought, as indicated by our horrible kludgy support for them.

The whole concept behind Be Bold is to add information that you know, and
not worry about referencing it; references will be added when needed.
References are obviously a great thing, and should be added whenever
possible, but should content really be removed just because it's not
referenced?

At the very least, we shouldn't expect newcomers to figure out citation
templates and Cite.php.  Just figure out a way to encourage first-time
editors to include some type of reference, in whatever form they can manage.


from_name: Anthony

subject: [Wikitech-l] MD5 Password Encryption

body:
On 1/24/07, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24/01/07, Anthony <wikitech at inbox.org> wrote:
> > Spoken like a true crackpot.  I don't think your little dream idea is
> > useful or manageable so I must not understand it.
>
> That's enough lame attacks, please, kthx.
>
You forgot to put the lame attack in your post:

"SUL isn't generic SSO. Clearly, you have little or no understanding
of the kind of problems that SUL is trying to fix or the benefits it
would bring, so I'm not sure why you thought it was a good idea to
embarrass yourself on a public list by backing ignorance with
invective."

Anthony


list: foundation-l

from_name: Steve Sanbeg

subject: [Foundation-l] EBNF of Wikitext

body:
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 20:31:44 +0000, Mark Clements wrote:

> "Virgil Ierubino" <virgil.ierubino at gmail.com>
> wrote in message
> news:24dce9db0701211957k752c1b69oec2d75ffbb4e5a68 at mail.gmail.com...
>> On 1/22/07, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Personally, I'm intrigued. Virgil, could you elaborate on the purpose
>> > of this project? In what ways can it help us (and who exactly is the
>> > 'us' in this case :))?
>>
>> As explained already, an EBNF of Wikitext will allow for expansion of
>> Wikitext easily as it's conforming to a standard, and a more efficient
>> parser, etc. I'm not the expert in WHY it's good though, I just know it
> is.
>> And I know how to write EBNFs, and I can't work out how to code Wikitext's
>> bullet points in EBNF - if EBNF can't handle Wikitext, then the efficient
>> parsing and expansion won't be possible (as easily).
>>
>> Would very much appreciate help from anyone clued up as to how to proceed
> if
>> Wikitext can't be EBNFed, or who can show me that it, in fact, can.
>>
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikitext_Metasyntax
>
> I missed the beginning of this thread for some reason.
>
> Please also see http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Markup_spec and its sub-pages
> for some work that has already been done in this area.  It would be useful
> if you could merge your new page on meta into this existing content.
>
> - Mark Clements (HappyDog)

To try and answer some of what was said before;

No, I don't think wiki text can be fully EBNFed.  Basically, an EBNF is a
formal specification for a well defined grammar.  The idea is that the
grammar is defined by the specification, and parsers can be written for
it.

Currently, wiki follows the perl model; *the* parser defines the
grammar, and any ambiguities are resolved by seeing how the parser deals
with them.

The way to proceed would be to first specify (EBNF) the unambiguous parts
that can be easily specified, then tweak the parser so that the
grammar would match the specification.

The advantage of doing this is that the grammar is then tied to a formal
specification, instead of a parser implementation, so different
implementations could parse the exact same grammar.  (i.e. currently, if
you had parsers in php, perl, & C, they would handle a few corner cases
based on peculiarities of the language, so they would technically
implement 3 slightly different grammars, which would hopefully be close
enough).


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] EBNF of Wikitext


subject: [Wikitech-l] EBNF of Wikitext


from_name: Emanuel Nordrum

subject: [Wikitech-l] Latest Talk updates

body:
Is it possible to display, in list format, what talk pages have been most
recently updated? I have a fairly small group of people working on my wiki,
and it would be great to make it easy for everyone to navigate to the latest
discussions.

Alternatively, is it possible to make a link specify a recent changes
namespace? I.e. I put up a link in the toolbar called "Latest Discussions"
which linked to Special:Recentchanges&namespace=1 (I also tried the full
URL), but neither worked. As I'm a newb, I'm sure there's something I'm just
missing. Any ideas?

Emanuel

--
"The best journalism is the first draft of history."
- John Pilger

GWwiki: http://www.hackwurld.com/gwwiki


body:
Wouldent they deserve their own article?

On 1/24/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 24/01/07, Keitei <nihthraefn at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 24, 2007, at 11:31, ? Firefoxman wrote:
> >
> > > What is it? I looked it up on WP but it was deleted. The site is
> > > blocked<http://www.arlington.k12.va.us/filter.html?URL=http://
> > > encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/
> > > Main_Page&IP=158.59.199.125&CAT=GPORN&USER=DEFAULT>at
> > > my school, so I cannot check the site.
> >
> > Trying to be as NPOV as possible, Encyclopedia Dramatica is meant to
> > be a humor site. It originated from LJ drama (which was a bit of a
> > fiasco for those involved, if I remember correctly)
>
> It originated from LJ drama and became ED after a very short stint on
> enwp, about one day long :-)
>
> > As for knocking them off their host, I don't think Wikipedia ever
> > would be or should be involved in this. If different people want to
> > initiate this, that's their business. Doesn't seem to be appropriate
> > for a Wikipedia mailing list, but that's just my opinion.
>
> Quite. If you want to lead a crusade to 'clean up' the internet,
> please feel free, but don't do it here unless we're actively involved.
> (The same applies to starting new search-engine projects, come to
> think of it)
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
-Firefoxman


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 1/24/07, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/24/07, Ligulem <ligulem at pobox.com> wrote:
> > "sysop approved" links?
> >
> > Sysops are choosen by consensus. How can that consensus be expanded to
> > "can choose external non-nofollow links by own discretion"?
>
> They already choose whether to spam-blacklist particular links.

Wiki admins don't.
Meta admins do.

It's an issue of scaling. It's not reasonable to expect the smallish
number small number of admins to maintain a list of this size, while
it's reasonable to expect the smaller number of admins on meta to
maintain the tiny SBL.

(We don't even have to go as far as using a bloom filter: We handle
page coloring by hitting the DB during parsing.. I'd proposed using a
bloom filter for this (and even coded a external daemon to handle link
color testing) but it just wasn't needed.)