subject:
[Wikitech-l] Thumbnail params,
	Was:  Image uploads now undeletable

body:
Can i remember http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5763 ?
It seems to be the time of file-hashing added to the FileStore (in fact,
there's a hashing performed) and preparing it to general files.

"Gregory Maxwell" wrote:
> On 6/18/06, Brion Vibber wrote:
>> When the primary file storage is migrated to the hash-based filestore,
>> that will
>> decouple physical filenames from logical filenames and make that
>> feasible.
>>
>> I do want to make sure it's done before the end of the year, but it's not
>> a top
>> priority (and we want to be damn sure migration will work correctly when
>> it
>> happens; we'll have near half a terabyte of data to migrate when the time
>> comes!) so it won't be tomorrow.
>
> Brion,
>
> When you work on the hash store for primary storage you'll have to
> address thumbnails.
> When you do this, please keep in mind the ability to create thumbs
> with multiple parameters beyond size, I'm not suggesting that such
> extensions need be implemented today, I just want us to avoid a
> redesign should we decide to implement them in the future.
>
.......
> 3) SVG parameters. For translations and other applications it would be
> useful to do basic variable replacement in SVGs, for example
> [[Image:heart.svg|250px|options=title:The human heart,la:Left
> auricular,rv:Right ventricle]]. Perhaps positioning issues will make
> that non-useful without a full XSLT engine (which can be done in bound
> memory and cpu...) but that would be a much larger issue.
I'd add this with a ''changed'' output style, similar to our ?action=raw but
with templates
trancluded, Maybe action=substed ?


list: foundation-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject:
[Foundation-l] Opinions/suggestions for "outside" members of
 the board?

body:
James Hare wrote:
> Well Mr. Wales, if you believe these people have very good ideas for
> Wikimedia (and they most likely do), then I really don't see the harm of
> appointing them. However, has something like this worked with other
> non-profit organizations?

Yes, it is standard practice at almost all nonprofit organizations.

--Jimbo


list: wikimedia-l


list: wikien-l

from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Username blocks on companies

body:
On 6/19/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> One should exercise caution when editing articles on subjects one has
> a personal stake in, yes.  Newbies should be discouraged from doing
> so, although not too forcibly.  There are many problems with editing
> such an article, of which POV-pushing is the least of it.  More of a
> problem is verifiability: if you work at a company, you are likely to
> write using non-public sources about it, including personal
> experience.
>
> An experienced editor familiar with sourcing can do good work on an
> article on a subject they are associated with.

Would it be fair to say that good faith edits on an article are to be
treated with caution, and bad faith edits are outright banned? That
is, if one accepts that one has a stake in an article, and agrees to
edit subject to the supervision of others, one can. If, however, one
insists that one has a right to edit no matter what - then one can go
and jump.

Steve


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Username blocks on companies

body:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:02:24 -0700, "Matt Brown" <morven at gmail.com>
wrote:

>Certainly.  One should understand that it's HARD to write good stuff
>if one's too involved.
>On the other hand, someone closely involved can have valuable insight
>and a good knowledge of published sources, too.

I offer as an example [[User:Stephen B Streater]], a model editor in
almost every respect save for his creation of an article on his own
product.  However, he understands enough of policy to make a good job
of stating only that which is verifiable.

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


list: wikitech-l

subject: [Wikitech-l] [WikiEN-l] newbie culture

references:
<44928F0E.1090600@student.canberra.edu.au>
	<eecbb0630606161828q2d38fecfo68a4cf8fb64206f6@mail.gmail.com>
	<eecbb0630606161828q2d38fecfo68a4cf8fb64206f6-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
	<4493629A.5020100@student.canberra.edu.au>
	<zzHEssBsG9kEFwfW@cartref.demon.co.uk>
	<b8ceeef70606170351h48451bbdj8ab52e0b88ca9e5f@mail.gmail.com>
	<4493E1AC.8050600@gawab.com> <44965645.4060708@vyznev.net>
	<f1c3529e0606190136m1d4e689dxff241cab5fe98a9e@mail.gmail.com>
	<e776d7$bj8$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 6/19/06, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:
> That looks like the kind of message humans (''those stupid machines'') will
> press 'ok, they're all good edits' '''without reviewing''' only to get the
> editbox shown. :(

That worst case scenario is equivalent to our current scenario. It
could be mitigated by showing, in your face, on the screen, the text
of the edits themselves, rather than making people click links etc.
It's also handy that they can be grouped - you only need to show the
combined effect of all the intervening modifications.

Steve


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-06-20

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

Running test External image... FAILED!
Running test External image from https... FAILED!
Running test External links: Clickable images... FAILED!
Running test Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)... FAILED!
Running test message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test Language converter: output gets cut off unexpectedly (bug 5757)... FAILED!
Running test HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test Parsing optional HTML elements (Bug 6171)... FAILED!
Running test Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting... FAILED!
Running test Mixing markup for italics and bold... FAILED!

Passed 388 of 404 tests (96.04%) FAILED!


from_name: Jon Awbrey

subject: [WikiEN-l] Exit Interview -- Jon Awbrey

body:
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

yes, but riddle me this:

| how many knees could a knee jerk jerk
| if a knee jerk could jerk knees?

jon awbrey

Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
>
> Jon Awbrey wrote:
> <snip>
> > If you have heard this before, then
> > you should think about the fact
> > that you keep hearing it.
> >
>
> From [[WP:RAUL]]...
>
> Extreme Unction's first law: If enough people act independently towards
> the same goal, the end result is indistinguishable from a conspiracy.
>
> Corollary: In any sufficiently large social endeavor, there will always
> be some subset of people who fail to understand this, and who will see
> conspiracies and cabals around every corner whenever their views fall
> into the minority.
>
> Corollary: As the number of people who independently conclude that
> someone is a disruptive jerk increases, the likelihood of that person
> actually being a positive, constructive contributor who's merely run
> afoul of the "ruling elite" decreases. Not that there was ever a big
> chance of that to begin with.
>
> Corollary: The people who most need to understand this law and its
> corollaries never will.
>
> --
> 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
>
>   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                           Name: signature.asc
>    signature.asc          Type: application/pgp-signature
>                    Description: OpenPGP digital signature
>
>   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Jon_Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [WikiEN-l] newbie culture

body:
On 6/17/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>
> I agree that admins block users too fast, and should use *warnings* more
> than they do.

I never cease to be surprised (and pleased) how many casual vandals
stop editing when I give them a warning message. They're mostly just
kids who've been caught with their hands in the biscuit tin (or
"cookie jar", for all you septics).

I worry there may be a few too many people who've got far too cynical
dealing with vandalism all day, and need to relax a bit.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] More quotes from AfD

body:
On 6/19/06, Keith Old <keithold at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Excellent point. Many people whinge about articles for deletion on this
> forum but few people vote.

I find that Dragons flight's AFD summary is an excellent way to find
ongoing debates that are on the knife edge, so to speak (and much
easier than trawling through a hundred debates a day):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragons_flight/AFD_summary

There's even a page specifically for controversial debates, ones with
at least 5 people participating and between 50-80% delete:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragons_flight/AFD_summary/Controversial
This seems to work fairly well; it correctly picked out the Resonance
AfD as controversial, for example.

> For the record, I think the Articles for Deletion process gets things right
> most of the time. In my view, there are much fewer problems than with speedy
> deletion. I am yet to be convinced that there is a better process than
> articles for deletion.

I agree. People have been saying it is broken for as long as I've been
here and it seems to work ok. There are problems at the margins, but I
would expect that from any process, and AfD gets it "right" probably
90-95% of the time or higher. All it needs is some people
participating who put a little thought into their comments, and some
admins who put a little thought into closing debates.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Andre Engels

subject:
[Foundation-l] Opinions/suggestions for "outside" members of
	the board?

body:
On 2006/6/19, Sue Reed <sreed1234 at yahoo.com>:
> I'm sure I could do a google search for Richard Stallman and find out who he is, but as a newer member of the Wikimedia community, I have no clue who he is. The "needs no introduction" assumes that everyone is of a certain level regarding whose who in the world.

According to Wikipedia (first paragraph of a much longer article:

Richard Matthew Stallman (frequently abbreviated to RMS) (born March
16, 1953) is the founder of the free software movement, the GNU
Project, and the Free Software Foundation. An acclaimed hacker, his
major accomplishments include Emacs (and the later GNU Emacs), the GNU
C Compiler, and the GNU Debugger. He is also the author of the GNU
General Public License (GNU GPL or GPL), the most widely-used free
software license, which pioneered the concept of the copyleft.

> I know who Larry Lessig is because of his connection to the John Edwards campaign in 2004, but otherwise I'd be lost as to who he is to.

Again from Wikipedia, but this time a bit deeper in the article:
He is founder and chair of the Creative Commons and a board member of
the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

And on those organisations:
The Creative Commons (CC) is a non-profit organization devoted to
expanding the range of creative work available for others legally to
build upon and share.

The Creative Commons website enables copyright holders to grant some
of their rights to the public while retaining others through a variety
of licensing and contract schemes including dedication to the public
domain or open content licensing terms. The intention is to avoid the
problems current copyright laws create for the sharing of information.

The project provides several free licenses that copyright holders can
use when releasing their works on the Web. They also provide RDF/XML
metadata that describes the license and the work that makes it easier
to automatically process and locate licensed works. They also provide
a "Founders' Copyright" [1] contract, intended to re-create the
effects of the original U.S. Copyright created by the founders of the
U.S. Constitution.

All these efforts, and more, are done to counter the effects of what
Creative Commons considers to be, in the words of chairman of the
board Lawrence Lessig, a dominant and increasingly restrictive
permission culture, "a culture in which creators get to create only
with the permission of the powerful, or of creators from the past".[2]
Lessig maintains that modern culture is dominated by traditional
content distributors in order to maintain and strengthen their
monopolies on cultural products such as popular music and popular
cinema, and that Creative Commons can provide alternatives to these
restrictions.[3][4]

and:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a non-profit advocacy and
legal organization based in the United States with the stated purpose
of being dedicated to preserving free speech rights such as those
protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution in
the context of today's digital age. Its stated main goal is to educate
the press, policymakers and the general public about civil liberties
issues related to technology; and to act as a defender of those
liberties.

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


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Foundation-l] the easy way or the less easy way

body:
Anthere wrote:

>2 years ago, I have been elected to represent the Foundation members.
>For a little while, I tried to set up the membership stuff and some of
>you may remember the discussion around the member dues.
>That discussion went nowhere. So, for a year, Angela represented all of
>you and I represented no one :-)
>
>At the following elections, we just dropped these two notions of
>volunteer representative/member representative.
>
That de facto change made sense even though it has not been supported by
a corresponding change in the by-laws.

>Our bylaws are severaly outdated, and on several points, totally
>inappropriate. In short, they need to be *changed*.
>I invite you to have a good look at them, and in particular to the whole
>sections about membership :
>http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws
>
>Does that section fit with reality ?
>
I think it's sufficient to agree that the by-laws as a whole do not
reflect the principles that drew us to this venture.

>Since these bylaws needed many changes (not only on the membership
>part), a new draft has been proposed and is currently on the board wiki.
>
My apologies if I am misreading something, but exactly who on the Board
is proposing the specified changes?  In some ways some of your comments
below seem to suggest that you are the only Board member with the energy
to devote to the by-laws; however, I also find that the specific
proposals do not match up with the very important principles that you
describe.  The last thing that I would want to do is to identify you
with ideas that are not yours.

>This new version has a very short "membership section".
>
>The community is still taken into account in ARTICLE II, where a new
>section has been proposed (section 4).
>
>Board members selection process is in ARTICLE III, section 3.
>
>The rest of the bylaws are a huge improvement compared to current ones.
>
>ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP
>The Foundation shall have no members.
>
I find this concept totally bizarre.  An organization is accountable to
its members.  It follows that an organization without members is
accountable to no-one.  The term "foundation" can take on different
meaning in different legal jurisdictions.  In many places a foundation
receives charitable donations for the sole purpose of providing
financial support for other worthy causes.  Admittedly, I have not
looked at how the term is defined in Florida state law, but I would hope
that there has been no explotation of the differences which people may
have in their understanding of that term.

Note too that in the existing by-laws the members are given the right to
some votes.  The proposed changes would quash the existing rights of
existing members, limited as those tights may be. At first glance it
would seem that the amendment section would allow this to be done, but I
don't know how Florida law looks upon by-law amendments whose effect
would be the mass disenfranchisement of all members.  I would venture
the guess that everyone who voted at the last Board election was ipso
facto recognized as a member.

>ARTICLE II
>Section 4. Community.
>The Foundation acknowledges the valuable contributions of volunteers
>throughout the world for their dedication and tremendous work. The
>Foundation defines as one of its purposes the enhancement of the various
>Wikimedia communities throughout the world in their respective languages.
>
The first sentence is pure fluff.  It's meant to make people feel good
without accomplishing a damn thing.  The second sentence is weaselly.
It does not define a community; it defines a "purpose".  That has very
little weight in the absence of a definition of those communities to
which it refers.  The whole section is meaningless.

>ARTICLE IV
>Section 3. Selection.
>The Trustees shall serve until their successors are elected and
>qualified. Selection shall be in the following manner:
>(1) Trustees Elected from the Community.
>At least two (2) Trustees shall be selected from the Community by vote
>of the Community. The Board of Trustees shall determine the dates, rules
>and regulation of the voting procedures; they shall appoint two
>Inspectors of the Election from the Community to oversee the election
>procedures who shall report and certify the results within thirty days
>of any vote.
>
Again, we need to define "Community".  The inspectors, reporting and
certification references are of secondary importance.

>(2) Other Trustees.
>The remaining number of Trustees shall be elected by the Board. Names of
>individuals shall be nominated for selection by the Board. The Board
>shall endeavor to select Trustees who will best fulfill the mission and
>needs of the Foundation. Individuals who are not selected unanimously
>may be elected by a majority of the Board.
>
This sounds like the principle of self-perpetuation.

These proposals would be worse than what we already have.

>These bylaws have not been approved. They are still in the draft mode.
>For all I know, they could stay here forever, because beside myself, I
>did not see other board members working on them. And I did not really
>see any comments from them either.
>
>I am uncertain whether I should give much energy on new bylaws, even if
>the current official ones are nonsense within the current situation.
>Uncertain because of the lack of reaction of board members, and the near
>lack of reaction of the community.
>Being just a board member, I can not *force* the other board members to
>vote. I am not in charge of organising meetings where we could vote or
>at least discuss together. In short, if a resolution to approve new
>bylaws is set up, I have NO certainty this will *ever* result in an
>approved resolution.
>
Would you really want them to vote on these?

>It takes a lot of energy to work on a topic when it is so pointedly
>ignored by peers.
>
I have worked on by-laws for other organizations, and know the feeling. :-(

>Hence my trying to turn toward you.
>How many editors work on the projects ? thousands
>How many people are registered to this list ? a few hundred
>How many people are active on this list ? A couple dozens
>How many people from wikitech commented on the Apache model ? 0
>How many people from this list commented on the Apache model ? less than 5
>
>As I said... it takes a lot of energy...
>
>But please, try to see the big picture ...
>
It also takes a lot of energy to just plough through this stuff enough
to have an informed opinion.  What you have said about the Apache model
seems to make a lot of broad sense, but the details would still need to
be reviewed separately to see how they could be adapted to our even more
diverse organization.

>Our current bylaws describe a very mixed model, which has been much
>complained about in the past 2 years (I criticized it myself when it was
>originally proposed).
>It has 2 members elected by the community, for a limited time
>And 3 members, appointed by Jimbo, and permanent till they die or resign
>And does not limit members to 5.... but makes no mention of how increase
>would be done.
>
>The second version of the bylaws (the ones standing on the board wiki)
>is the same (it would make no difference in terms of board of trustees
>organisation), but for pointing out a reality : there is no Foundation
>membership.
>
>Roughly, this model would be what I would qualify as a Private
>Foundation. Or Business Foundation. It is a Foundation which focus a lot
>on the efficiency of business (except that there is no business
>model...but well...) and would privilege addition of famous or wealthy
>members in the future.
>DON'T GET ME WRONG ! Right now, the majority of board members wish very
>much that there be community members on the board... but that's in good
>part because we are currently still 5 members. Now, imagine we add 2
>famous guys. We'll have a board of 7 with 2 from the community only.
>Then, imagine we add 2 other big guys. The community part will be 2/9.
>Of course, the addition could be of 2 guys from the community. In such
>case, they would be appointed.
>
>What I mean to say is that in this model, the community existence would
>really be recognised up to 2 people, which would be elected by the
>community. The rest of the members would come from an internal decision.
>Self-appointing board... with no terms limit.
>
Yep, that's a perfect reflection of the business mentality.  It has
worked well that way for centuries, or as some would say, "If it ain't
broke don't fix it." ;-)

If you put it all in terms of the World Economic Order the transition
from the Davos model to the Porto Alegre model is a difficult and
painful one.

>The Apache model is entirely different. I would call it a public
>Foundation or a Community Foundation. Majority of members would be
>garanteed from the community. There would be term limits. It would be a
>collective running. This is very much the model of our local
>associations in Europe... and that might be where the problem lies. I
>think the model of Associations (public/members) is very much european;
>whilst the model of Foundation (private/upon appointement) is very much
>american and hard to understand by europeans.
>
This is a plausible analysis.

>Which model would be better in our case ?
>
>I dunno really.
>
It requires a careful weighing of the benefits and defects of each. That
alone gives more weight to some hybrid.

>One model insists more on business. It would certainly be more business
>efficient in the long run. It will certainly be more stable and more
>reliable (only limited turnover in the board). Likely more professional.
>I can envision a group of famous people seating on its board, with 3-4
>meetings per year. Some staying there forever because that looks good on
>their business card, even though they do nothing at all (this is already
>the case of one of our member). A big and well-paid staff to run the
>business. And little by little, disinterest by the community.
>But this might be the best choice to create bonds with the big firms,
>the big NGOs, as that Foundation will appear more solid and trustworthy.
>More money... could mean better support of the projects and of our goals.
>
Do we really want that kind of bigness?  Or is it an inevitable
development in the life and death of institutions?  The whole situatiion
smells of stale cigars.

>The second model will be more lively. A bazaar of some sorts. We could
>expect the board to get more involved in every-day running. More
>volunteer work probably. It will be much more difficult to organise,
>because of the noises of campaigning from new candidates, of the public
>discussions. It will be more of a social construction. Less stable due
>to turn-over of board members. We would not have such a good image in US
>business, but we might be loved by free-movement organizations and
>citizens all over the world.
>I suppose we'll have less money... but we may have more ideas because of
>the boiling culture.
>
>In the end, I think there is both a cultural clash in what we are trying
>to set up... and an issue of courage.
>
Absolutely!  The problem is that most people feel more comfortable in a
stable environment, even when it produces inferior results.

>If we pick up the first model, I think things can go very quickly and
>with little pain. This summer, at Wikimania, we'll meet big names (I say
>"we" because Jimbo already have breakfast with them regularly... but the
>board should appoint them... so it would be nice that the board members
>actually know the people they get recommandation to appoint). We can
>think of who would be best asset, just ask him, and by september, we'll
>have a nice board with new big names and maybe one community member we
>like. And with luck, more money, more introduction and new opportunities.
>
>If we pick up the second model, it will be much more painful. The
>community (and not Delphine and I alone :-)) will need to do its
>homework. Seriously discuss a mean to select members. Seriously discuss
>organisation. And not only stay mute on the list or not only say "this
>will never work" or not only blame the board just to be so inefficient
>without proposing solutions. We'll need to sweat together. And we'll
>need to convince quite a few people that this is the way to go.
>
Serious discussions are a tough thing to get happening.  That's not what
we have been trained to do all our lives.  To make things worse many
whose opinions would be very valuable are prone to desire instant mental
gratification instead of calm reflective consideration.

>I would prefer the second model myself, but I will NOT fight for it
>*alone*. I will not alone try to push for a system if there is no
>*active* support. I will not try to set up a scheme to see it abandonned
>on the board wiki.
>
>I thought it over and over. I am not sure which one of the two models
>would be best for the goals of the Foundation. According to our habits,
>we would say "first option". But are we not precisely amongst those who
>proved that a decentralized, transparent model, largely based on
>volunteer work and using the goodwill of non-expert people may be
>successful ?
>
We've gone a long way toward that proof.  References to Wikipedia in the
media are more frequent and without accuracy disclaimers.

>As I can not be sure whether it would be the best choice for the
>Foundation, I tried to see how I would appreciate each model as an
>individual and I invite you guys to do the same with self-honesty
>(estimate which one would be best for the general good and which one
>would be best for you).
>
>I have little interest in the first model as an *individual*.
>This model is humiliating to me. The big actors in this model would be
>the big names, which I do not have the chance to meet or talk with. The
>strategy of the Foundation would be done between Jimbo and the big names
>in 5 stars conference halls or in far-away islands, where no one will
>ever think of inviting me (eh, best to keep the circle of people small).
>
>I will simply be offered the results of brainstorms of important people
>to implement and vote upon (I don't know why I use future, this is
>already happening). I will have the great opportunity to prepare the
>path of the big people in doing their homework so that they better
>shine. Community representatives would be second rate board member.
>
First rate Board members are the ones who challenge these trends.

>The other people in the Foundation would be the staff, who would make a
>(good) living of what I do full time for free (and who receive the
>religious ceremonies from community when the board gets the fire).
>
>I say "I", but I am quite convinced many would feel just the same.
>
>That would leave the benefit of working for a great cause...
>But would the biggest cause be the projects ? Or the Foundation ?
>
For the person who believes in a cause and ideas being paid is an
ethical question

>Where are we in these models right now ?
>
>In the middle. We have some community representant, but the relations
>between community and Foundation are disorganised. We'll soon have new
>appointed board members. I do not expect new appointments to help
>reducing the lack of communication.
>
>But this is a broken system. Balancing between the Business Foundation
>and the Community Foundation, so that no one knows where to put his ass.
>
>At this point, in large part, this now depends on you. If you want to do
>a more Community Foundation, we need bylaws which reflect this. We need
>to set up the organisation (on a type of Apache model for example). We
>need to convince those who are not convinced.
>
Let's not put too much emphasis on by-laws and governance models.  Such
misplaced emphasis could find us doing the same thing we complain
about.  By-laws should reflect a consensus on what we are all about.

>If you want to do a more Business Foundation, the bylaws are ready to be
>voted upon. Members are knocking at the door.
>
>A very bad thing would be to stay forever in the middle of two seats,
>with unsuitable bylaws, disorganisation, frustrated community and angry
>board members.
>
>Sorry for the long rant.
>I hope it clarifies the current situation.
>
The apology is not needed when you say what needs to be said.

Ec


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Thumbnail params,
 Was: Image uploads now undeletable

body:
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 02:08:57PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> I'm glad to hear that other people think such features would be useful.
> I hadn't gotten to chime in, but yes, by all means, I think that
> user-specifiable crop and zoom parameters would be a useful addition to
> MediaWiki.
>
Apropos of the thumbnailing issue, it might actually be a huge advantage to
be able to crop and zoom.

Consider the case where we have a historical photograph showing several
notable people. We have the option of simply showing the same image against
each of those people, or uploading multiple cropped fragments showing each
person in turn.

Imagine the possibilities of uploading a single image showing all those
people and then being able to show just the appropriate face in the article,
linking through to the main image for context.

HTH HAND
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Thumbnail-params%2C-Was%3A--Image-uploads-now-undeletable-t1812341.html#a4951623
Sent from the Wikipedia Developers forum at Nabble.com.


from_name: Anthere

body:
The Cunctator wrote:
> On 6/19/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 6/19/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Comments on these names are welcome... as are further ideas of course!
>>
>>Hey, didn't I hear Bill Gates will be free soon. ;-)  --LV
>
>
>
> I'd LOVE to see Wikipedia used to force Creative Commons and FSF to work
> together. We're the 800-pound (or 800000-pound) gorilla in the category
> "users of the GFDL" and I'd really like to see formal license compatibility.
>
> Using the Wikimedia Foundation board as a mechanism to do so would be
> wonderful.
>
> Other suggestions (always interested in non-American equivalents):
>
>    - Michael Hart or Greg Newby, Project Gutenberg (Newby is *great*)
>    - Karen G. Schneider, kgs at bluehighways.com , (former?) Internet
>    Librarian for American Libraries Online,
> http://www.ala.org/alonline/and the Coordinator of the Librarian's
> Index to the Internet (LII),
>    http://lii.org/ (IM: LIIchief)
>    - Roy Tennant, http://escholarship.cdlib.org/rtennant/ , creator and
>    editor of Current Cites, http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/CurrentCites/
>    - Tim O'Reilly, O'Reilly Publishing (if we want to get into making a
>    dead-tree version)
>    - Larry Page / Sergey Brin
>    - Al Gore
>
> I don't know the right names, but someone who's been really good at
> advocating for improved resources/outreach into the third world, third world
> civil rights etc. would also be a great addition outside of the "obvious"
> choices.
>
> I'm reminded that when Steve Jobs wanted to start Apple Stores, he got the
> CEO of The Gap on the board--someone who knows nothing about computing, but
> everything about retail. So what would be the equivalent for the Wikimedia
> mission? I would think that, say, a former top UN official could be very
> good for Wikimedia; someone who would know everyone in all the countries of
> the world and know how to manage a multicultural coalition. Kofi Annan?
> Madeleine Albright? I'm sure people can come up with better ideas.

Nod.

One problem I have with your list and with Jimbo's list is that they
propose very few great candidates from Korea or Madagascar.

ant


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
On 6/19/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:

> Larry Lessig - head of Creative Commons
> Mitch Kapor - head of Mozilla Foundation (Firefox), founder of EFF, and
> extremely passionate about the Wikipedia mission (and he edits
> Wikipedia, and he is absolutely fascinated by and supportive of our
> community model)
> Richard Stallman - needs no introduction
> Eben Moglen - main legal mastermind of the FSF

These are the obvious American free culture / free software
representatives. As I've said before, we need to think carefully about
what we are trying to achieve. If this is for the purpose of
fundraising and expression of mutual respect (I know you are on the CC
board already), then an Advisory Council would do just fine, and would
allow us to put an arbitrary number of people there.

Would I want Eben Moglen, RMS or Larry Lessig to vote on our copyright
policies, or on what new project to approve, or on what personnel to
hire? Most likely not. Would I want Mitch Kapor, a key advocate of
Mozilla's current corporate approach, to vote on whether Wikipedia
should allow advertising? Definitely not. Nor do these people bring
truly different perspectives to our organization that we do not
already have. In other words, we do not have to search much in our
community to find people who think exactly like RMS. Yes, they are
crucially important in the movements they represent. But we are
already well known and well established in that scene.

Please review the typical descriptions of non-profit Board
responsibilities, e.g.:
http://www.idealist.org/if/idealist/en/FAQ/QuestionViewer/default?section=03&item=02

Note that I believe Wikimedia is substantially _different_ from
typical non-profits, so any standard recipes do not apply. However,
the responsiblities of the Board are fairly clear, and in our context,
the Board -- even with a decreased role in day to day governance --
has a very substantive role in defining the future of our project.
Deciding to literally give a share of that future to an outsider is a
very serious move. Much more serious than, say, removing an inactive
trustee from the Board.

If you go down the route of appointing a substantial number of
outsiders, at the very least you should consider delegating a subset
of that authority and responsiblity to an Executive Committee. But I
don't see a strong reason to do this in the first place, and none has
been put forward. What are the reasons we need RMS, Lessig, or Moglen
on our regular governing Board?

Again, if you want fresh thinking on the governing Board, and people
who actually participate, then I think we need to look in the worlds
of
- access to knowledge in the developing world
- eLearning and ICT skills development
- academia and education
- languages, internationalization, localization
- freedom of speech (think Chinese Wikipedia)
- digitization, archiving and metadata
- ...

These are areas which are not truly represented in our current group,
nor can we easily find experts here in our community. They are,
however, critical to the success of our organization. Again, I am not
convinced we need these people on the governing Board, but I'd prefer
someone who _doesn't_ have a strong, preformed opinion on many of the
copyright and policy questions that will come up.

A group of only Americans would be regrettable. If you, in spite of my
objections above, want people from the free software / free culture
community, you might consider people like [[Georg Greve]] (FSF
Europe), [[Volker Grassmuck]] (Wizards of OS organizer, has written an
excellent book about free software / free culture), Markus Beckedahl
(Netzwerk Neue Medien, very involved with Creative Commons), [[Konrad
Becker]], someone from FFII.org, someone from CCC e.V., ... there are
lots of possibilities. Jean-Baptiste should be able to come up with a
few other good Euroepean suggestions, but I'd also like people from
the developing world in particular.

Erik


from_name: Filip Maljkovic

body:
Ilya Haykinson wrote:
> First, Brewster Kahle, [...]
>
> Second, Mike Godwin [...]
>
> Finally, I suggest Mark Shuttleworth.  [...]
>
Now those are the people I'd like to see. Madeleine Albright, on the
other hand, is, by far, the worst suggestion, IMO.

Filip
[Dungodung]


body:
On 6/20/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> Of course you don't.
> Should we decide to accept someone who is qualified and experienced it
> would preclude selecting you.

Is there a policy against personal attacks on this list?

Erik


from_name: Erik Zachte

subject:
[Foundation-l] Opinions/suggestions for "outside" members ofthe
	board?

body:
Anthere:
> One problem I have with your list and with Jimbo's list is that they
> propose very few great candidates from Korea or Madagascar.

North or South Korea? Difficult choice:
The former will surely add a different perspective from what we have now.
Also their system for representing the people is very efficient.
The latter has more dotcom millionaires with plenty of free time.

Madagascar gets bonus points for the capital with the most beautiful name:
Antananarivo.

Erik Zachte


body:
On 6/20/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> It would be inapproiate to quies criticism of board hopefuls.

I will leave it to others to decide whether your comments represent a
personal attack or not. If they do, and you continue to make them, I
hope that you will be put on moderation. I do not participate in
discourse on that level.

Erik


body:
On 6/20/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> For someone usually so loud an opinionated you're awful quick to
> assume the role of a meek victim when it appears that you could gain
> from it.

I am not at all meek, Gregory. However, I make an effort to contain my
anger, and to transform it into productive energy. I will not dignify
your messages with further responses.

Erik


subject: [Wikitech-l] double apostrophes in titles

body:
Steve Bennett-4 wrote:
>
> Heh, just yesterday I was going to write that '''' would almost never
> be used to mean "apostrophe followed by bold".  Today, I used it at
> French Wikipedia in the first sentence of an article:
>
> L''''oeuf mimosa'''...
>
> Nothing better than discovering one's own shortsightedness so soon!
>
See this is where using real apostrophes would actually be an advantage,
insane mutterings about MS "smart quotes" be damned...

HTH HAND
--
Phil
...who to be fair has muttered his fair share ;-)
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Categories-on-nap.wikipedia.org-don%27t-work-t1691057.html#a4952578
Sent from the Wikipedia Developers forum at Nabble.com.


body:
On 6/20/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> I'm not sure what his problem with RMS and Eben Moglen are.

I don't have a "problem" with _any_ of the people listed bringing
their substantial experience and allowing us to benefit from it. I
have worked closely with Larry and Richard on the Free Content
Definition, and their detailed and qualified feedback has been
instrumental to get to the point where we are now. Doing so has also
shown me how very different their perspectives are.

Their tremendous qualifications and immense contributions to our
broader movement aside, as I said (and as Kelly Martin also pointed
out), I think we need to think carefully about whether they need to be
on the _governing_ Board of the organization.

RMS and Larry Lessig "battling it out", as you say, on the mailing
list is one thing; them actually voting on whether we should adopt
this or that licensing model is quite another. Here I think a full and
deep understanding of the needs and practices of the community is
required to make a well-informed decision, based, quite possibly, on
the actively solicited _input_ of people like the ones mentioned.

For instance, RMS is a strong advocate of copyleft. Wikinews chose to
adopt CC-BY, without copyleft. I could easily see such a decision
escalating to a significant and avoidable Board level conflict. I
could also see one of these appointees holding a key vote in a split
decision. I would prefer the final call to always be made by he
community, or at least by members of the Board who have some long term
involvement there.

This concern is somewhat made obsolete if we choose to adopt an
Executive Committee (a subset of the Board which reports to the
Board), and where people like the ones mentioned would likely not
participate due to time constraints alone. However, it remains true in
any case that the Board is the final legal authority of the
organization, and can restructure it as it requires.

I favor a Board fully elected by the community, which makes its
strategic and organizational decisions based on a broad and diverse
basis of information. An Advisory Council strikes me as the best way
to achieve this. Failing such a Board setup, I would prefer appointees
from outside fields that are not represented in our current group, and
who will abstain on some of the issues where their qualifications  do
not come into play.

Erik


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 6/19/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/20/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Of course you don't.
>>> Should we decide to accept someone who is qualified and experienced it
>>> would preclude selecting you.
>>>
>> Is there a policy against personal attacks on this list?
>>
>
> You're not qualified or experienced in terms of running a non-profit
> foundation or large scale publishing, this is a matter of fact. You
> are tireless politicking for a position on the board.
>
> It would be inapproiate to quies criticism of board hopefuls.
>
> If I am mistaken and you have no intention of ever serving on the
> board, please say so publicly and I'll apologise and never again point
> out that you never do much except worthless posturing.
>
> Alternately you could spend some of the time you spend writing
> proposals and conjecture and instead get something done, and then
> perhaps I'd have a reason to support you rather than point out how
> inaccurate the claims you make about your own importance are...
Hoi,
Sorry to butt in. But I can testify to Erik DOING things.. Have a look
at http://wiktionaryz.org Much of the technical work done is his. Erik
has published many designs for improvements of the MediaWiki software,
asked for comments and modified the designs where needed. Many of these
projects he proposed are now active parts of projects. Erik has had an
effect on all projects; he was largely instrumental in creating Commons
and Wikinews. You may not like the guy, you may not like his ideas but
he certainly has proved that he influenced the Wikimedia Foundation and
he is certainly one of the more influential people of our community

My question would be: do /you /know your who is who and, what is /your
/claim to fame.. ?? I know you from the mailing lists ..

Thanks,
   GerardM


body:
Andrew Dunbar wrote:
> On 6/17/06, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 08:26:12AM -0600, Andrew Dunbar wrote:
>>
>>>> And there's at least one more possibility: today I happened to
>>>> notice that there's also a Unicode double apostrophe character,
>>>> U+02EE.  I'm not sure, but it might be tailor-made for Neopolitan.
>>>>
>>> Again, there are multiple Unicode double apostrophe characters,
>>> but this one is also not punctuation but a letter: "modifier letter double
>>> apostrophe".
>>>
>> Which, if I correctly followed all the earlier conversation, means
>> that yes, it's exactly what the Neapolitan people want.
>>
>
> OK. Now I understand the context of this discussion more fully.
> I do not know much about Neapolitan so I cannot say whether it has a
> letter which looks like a double quote or whether it has a letter which
> looks like an apostrophe which can occur as a double letter. That would
> be an important difference.
>
> What I can say is that at least one indigenous language of Mexico,
> Amuzgo, uses a letter which looks like an apostrophe which can occur
> as a double letter. So the situation is certainly possible. I doubt anybody
> is likely to start an Amuzgo Wikipedia any time soon though considering
> the small number of speakers.
>
> Andrew Dunbar (hippietrail)
Hoi,
Maybe there may not be an Amuzgo Wikipedia any time soon, but words of
the Amuzgo language (
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=amu ) are quite welcome
in any of the Wiktionaries or in WiktionaryZ. This is not dependant of a
new project being requested or anything.
Thanks,
   GerardM


body:
On 6/20/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort at gmail.com> wrote:
> But to the point (and I am sure this has been proposed in some form
> before), for whomever mentioned here that is not eventually on the
> Board, why not just set aside a small portion of the budget to use as
> "consultant fees"?

I think that is probably a good idea. I would like to hear Brad's
thoughts on this, as he is now the legal counsel and interim director
of the Foundation and can best estimate what level of outside
expertise is required, at least on an operational level. One thing to
keep in mind is that we can get a lot of pro bono help, and that this
model works well in areas where advice is not critical.

Erik


list: textbook-l

from_name: Jon

subject: [Textbook-l] Wikiversity

body:
A number of comments:

1. If the aim is to provide multimedia learning materials for all age
groups, not just university-level, then Wikiversity is a very bad name.
Go for another one - Wikilearning, Wikicollege, Wikischool, something
else. Just something which does not automatically imply that it is just
for university-level learning. Otherwise, you will put off a lot of your
target audience just with the name. Seriously. Give a dog a bad name...
well, you know the rest.

2. Do bear in mind that Wikibooks does use multimedia already -
at least in terms of audio files - and will wish to continue to do so. Some
textbooks already have exercises and Q&As. If these can be made
more dynamic on Wikibooks in the future, then I'm sure they will. Audio
textbooks also, to my mind, fall within Wikibooks' domain. It's not
clear to me whether the Wikiversity proposal seeks to dilute effort
on these elements of textbooks, or not.

3. The aims Cormac lists for Wikiversity do not appear to agree with
Michael Irwin's aims for Wikiversity. If the scope is not clear amongst
the potential initial participants, it sure won't be clear amongst potential
students.

4. Wikiversity seems very ambitious (more ambitious than Wikibooks, and
Wikibooks, to date, has not yet delivered as much as we would wish). It's
fair to ask - however noble the ideas- why you think they will work.

Kind regards

Jon

----- Original Message ----
From: Cormac Lawler <cormaggio at gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>; Wikimedia textbook discussion <textbook-l at wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, 19 June, 2006 1:10:41 PM
Subject: [Textbook-l] Wikiversity

Dear all,

Wikiversity is a proposed Wikimedia project, based specifically around
education and learning - the proposal to set up Wikiversity as a
Wikimedia project is at:
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity/Modified_project_proposal>.
This proposal has been an attempt to address the fact that the last
proposal (see: <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity>) was not
approved by the board (the background to this is summarised on the
current proposal's page).

For the last three months or so, the proposal (which was already in
development) has been extended and reworked by the Wikiversity
subcommittee (see:
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity_subcommittee>). The
subcommittee is now pretty much satisfied that we have constructed a
proposal and scope for the project which gives it the flexibility to
develop, but also the clear rationale to exist as a separate project.
I'm now in the process of negotiating this with the Special Projects
Committee, hopefully to get it set up quite soon indeed :-).

In brief, the proposal is to:
*Host multimedia learning materials for all levels (ie not just
university) in all languages
*Develop learning communities around these materials
*Host research - possibly original research (though this will need to
be discussed by its community)

There is more to the proposal and scope and, if you are interested, I
would urge you to read the proposal and its related pages, which you
can find through a navigational template at the top right of
meta:Wikiversity pages. There is also a very basic mock-up of the
front page of Wikiversity, geared towards the current proposal, at:
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity/Example>.

One of the things the board last recommended was that the community be
"joyful" about the proposal before setting up Wikiversity. So, this
post is to gauge just how joyful people are about the proposal, what
you think works and what doesn't, what you would change, add, remove,
etc. I would like to use this thread to discuss what the best way
forward for Wikiversity would be, so we can give it the best start we
can.

Yours,

Cormac Lawler (m:User:Cormaggio)
(on behalf of the Wikiversity subcommittee)

PS: Please feel free to post this message (or a modification of it) at
appropriate places - I'm just posting this initially to foundation-l
and textbook-l (even though it slightly duplicates a discussion
already underway at the latter).
_______________________________________________
Textbook-l mailing list
Textbook-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l


list: commons-l

from_name: Kevin Gamble

subject: [Commons-l] Image donations?

body:
> Er...you mean for the general public? I support seeking image
> donations for historical topics or specific holes in our coverage, but
> I don't know that we need more general amatuer
> my-dog-in-my-backyard,sunset-over-my-fence,my-street-my-school-my-car
> whatever photos. It seems to me the vetting system would have to
> discard 90% of what they were offered, so I rather question if it
> would be a worthwhile exercise.

I would think there could be some large university collections, etc. that
would be well worth making an effort to acquire (not that that's the right
word). I think a strategy to go after some of these extensive collections
would be well worth the effort.

Kevin


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

body:
On 6/19/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/19/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > I gave a brief explanation of what I think Erik is talking about wrt
> > Larry Lessig.  For an example of the dispute, see also
> > http://intelligentdesigns.net/blog/?p=25
>
> So you believe Erik opposed Lessig for being pragmatic enough to
> believe that there is a place in the world for unfree but not
> outrageously limited content?
>
I won't speak for Erik, but I've read enough by Lessig to know that
his philosophy on this matter goes well beyond mere pragmatism.
Lessig doesn't just recognize that he lives in a world with unfree
content, that's the world he wants to live in.

> I'd hope that Lessig would realize that "free as in beer" media is
> already done rather well by NPR, and that while there is a place in
> the world for unfree things, that place isn't Wikimedia.   I'd hope
> so, and nothing from my limited conversations with him has suggested
> otherwise...  It would seem to be rather disrespectful to dismiss him
> on the basis of such presumptions.
>
I don't think he should be dismissed completely.  I just don't think
it's appropriate to put him on the governing board, especially a
strong governing board with essentially no limits on its power,
without the community first getting to know him, within the context of
Wikimedia, a lot more.

> > His problem with Mitch Kapor seems clear.  For more background see
> > [[Mozilla Corporation]].
> >
> > I'm not sure what his problem with RMS and Eben Moglen are.
>
> As above these people have a proven track record and substantial
> experience.  They may hold some views which are incompatible, but we
> can't know that based on assumptions and our own criticisms related to
> circumstances which are vastly different from our own...

And that is precisely why I don't think it's a good idea to put
outsiders on the governing board in the first place.

> It's clear
> that they all have vision and  experience which could benefit us, and
> a proven trackrecord to back up their claims.   It's not like anyone
> is discussing handing them board seats without discussion.
>
If you think there's going to be a public announcement that X is being
considered for appointment to the board, and that the community now
has a chance to interview the candidate and see how well he or she
fits in with Wikimedia, I think you're sadly mistaken.  I'm under the
assumption that this *is* that discussion.  It seems to be going about
similar to the discussion over who to name as the chief executive.

> > These people don't bring particularly different perspectives to the
> > organization, but I do think their input is useful, because they
> > represent some of the most influential people with regard to those
> > perspectives.  I'd love to have RMS and Larry Lessig battling it out
> > on this mailing list over how best to implement Wikimedia project
> > copyright policies (with Eben Moglen presenting his own opinions as to
> > how best to implement these policies).  But I think it's pretty
> > obvious that they're already invited to do so.
>
> Presumably they aren't here arguing on the list because they are busy
> getting something done. :)
>
I would think, considering your participation in this discussion, that
engaging in open dialogue with the goal of determining the right thing
to do is often just as useful as actually doing it.

> > Unfortunately I don't know much about Mitch Kapor.  But given what I
> > do know I would love to hear his input on how best to bring
> > sustainable revenue to the foundation.  This doesn't mean I know
> > enough to say he should be given a vote.
>
> Absolutely, I don't know enough either. But I know enough not to
> dismiss them off hand...
>
Maybe I've done that, and if so I guess I shouldn't have.  But I
repeat the question asked by others in this thread.  What is the
purpose of putting one of these people on the board in the first
place?  What is the purpose that isn't served equally by some other
position?

Anthony


subject: [Wikitech-l] Conflict with Post / Redirect

body:
Hello,
  This isn't quite the right list for your question - the English
Wikipedia list (wikien-l) would be better. But anyway!

To modify a redirect (which is what you want to do), go to [[William
Albert Wirt]], then click on the link in "Redirected from William
Albert Wirt". You can modify the redirect to point to whatever you
like.

Note that in this case since that's the valid full name of both
people, it may not be the best choice - up to you. In either case, I
suggest you use one of the disambiguation link templates listed at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Dablink to refer people
back and forth between the two articles.

Steve

On 6/20/06, TWEBT <webmaster at twebt.com> wrote:
> I tried to post William Albert Wirt today, and kept being redirected to
> William Wirt; the General.
>
> William Albert Wirt was the best Superintendent of schools, that started the
> Platoon System.
>
> I had to list him under, Superintendent William Albert Wirt .
>
> Is there anyway, that it can be changed to just William Albert Wirt, without
> conflicts with William Wirt the General?
>
> TimT
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject: [WikiEN-l] New York Times article

body:
On 6/17/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That Wikipedia will always be straddling the uncomfortable
> divide between reliability and editability,

This is the same false dilemma that reporters just can't seem to grasp.
There is no such divide.

Ryan


from_name: Steve Summit

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 6/20/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> L''''oeuf mimosa'''...
>>
>> See this is where using real apostrophes would actually be an advantage,
>> insane mutterings about MS "smart quotes" be damned...
>
> I don't follow - real apostrophes as opposed to what? How? Where? Whodunnit?

You probably knew this much of the story, but:

1. In the beginning there was the ASCII apostrophe, hex 0x27,
   decimal 39.  It was also used as a single quote character,
   as of course it is in typography.  Some computer printers
   and displays displayed the apostrophe as a slanted glyph,
   reminiscent of a typographical apostrophe, and some users
   paired it with the grave accent or "backquote" (0x60, 96) when
   using it as a quote: `like this'.  Other printers and displays
   used a directionless vertical glyph -- as indeed old
   typewriters did, since they had no ! character and users were
   expected to backspace and overstrike a ' and a . to create one.
   Some users paired the apostrophes when using them as quotes,
   'like this', and many computer languages (C, SQL, etc.) used
   the character this way in character and string constants.

2. When Unicode 1.0 came out, recognizing the overuse of the
   ASCII apostrophe, it split that one character into three,
   so to speak:

	hex	dec	UTF8	description
	---	---	----	-----------
	0x27	39	'	Apostrophe-Quote (ambiguous)
	0x02BC	700	?	Modifier Letter Apostrophe
	0x2019	8217	?	Single Comma Quotation Mark

   0x02BC was the "preferred character for apostrophe", and 0x2019
   was the "preferred character for closing single quotation mark".

3. Somewhere between Unicode 2.0 and Unicode 3.0, the
   recommendation was changed so that 0x2019 (whose official name
   is now "Right Single Quotation Mark") is now the preferred
   character for both the closing single quotation mark and the
   apostrophe.  Personally I think this is a real shame, but I've
   turned into a real crank on the subject so I won't rant about
   it here.

Anyway, the point is that there are now a bunch of
apostrophe-like characters which you can use if you (a) want to
be typographically correct, or (b) want to reduce ambiguity, or
(c) want to play games like the one being discussed here, to duck
a special meaning of one particular character, or (d) *increase*
ambiguity and get into endless philosophical arguments on
Wikipedia and Wiktionary trying to decide which character the
Manual of Style should recommend for use in ordinary text, or
article titles.  (Should it be "it's" or "it?s"?)

And the fun doesn't end there, either.  Besides the obvious left
single quotation mark, there are two other variants for emulating
various European typographical styles, and there's also a
distinct "prime" character which is preferred for indicating feet
and minutes of arc (and which has been debated over on [[Template
talk:Coor dms]]), and then there's this new double apostrophe.
And then the whole story repeats for double quotes, though at
least without the apostrophe angle.

	0x2018	8216	?	Left Single Quotation Mark
	0x201A	8218	?	Single Low-9 Quotation Mark
	0x201B	8219	?	Single High-Reversed-9 Quotation Mark
	0x2032	8242	?	Prime
	0x02EE	750	?	Modifier Letter Double Apostrophe

	0x0022	34	"	Quotation Mark
	0x201C	8220	?	Left Double Quotation Mark
	0x201D	8221	?	Right Double Quotation Mark
	0x201E	8222	?	Double Low-9 Quotation Mark
	0x201F	8223	?	Double High-Reversed-9 Quotation Mark
	0x2033	8243	?	Double Prime

(Probably more than you wanted to know.  I'll stop now, without
even mentioning fullwidth variants, or double prime quotation marks.
I've managed to avoid any insane mutterings about "smart quotes", too.)


body:
On 6/20/06, Pawe? Dembowski <fallout at lexx.eu.org> wrote:
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
> > I won't speak for Erik, but I've read enough by Lessig to know that
> > his philosophy on this matter goes well beyond mere pragmatism.
> > Lessig doesn't just recognize that he lives in a world with unfree
> > content, that's the world he wants to live in.
>
> Well, I wouldn't want to live a world with only "free" content.
>
And I wouldn't want you on the board of Wikimedia.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Exit Interview -- Jon Awbrey

body:
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

post 8.

response to a friendly off-list message,
which i will go ahead and post here in
the hopes that a different stroke might
work better for different folks.  ja.

thanks for the friendly response.

i'm a 50+ year old person with a solid lib arts BA,
MA's in math and psych, lots of post-grad study in
multiple fields, and years of cross-disciplinary
experience as a statistical consultant where i
specialized in constructing software and even
philosophical bridges between sub-communities
of researchers who had all but lost the ability
to comprehend each others' ways and motivations.

i understand about high ideals and non-elitism --
i'm a onetime flower-child from a generation
of non-elitists.

but WP defeats me, and it's largely because
it enforces a regime of dishonest communication,
and it's gotten confused about the difference
between non-elitism and anti-knowledge-ism.

when i started out, i called a spade a spade.
things that any mature adult, not to mention
trained scholar, would call obvious vandalism,
manifest disruption, uninformed statements, or
malformed citation are things that i described
in precisely those terms.  and all i got was
one dire warning after another that you just
aren't allowed to say those sorts of things.

i have a life, periodic travel and the arts,
i take the breaks that i need.  i realized
early on that some of the more generic and
popular articles were a special hard case
so far as their inertia against improvement
goes, and i have a large number of non-pop
articles that i normally go work on when
the pop phil articles seem stuck in mud.

but when a gang of sophomoric meta-puppets start
tracking you back to your more quiet lairs just
to wreak whatever destruction they can because
you committed the sin of correcting their more
obvious errors of fact, that anybody can check
from the cites you give, or call them on their
deviance from WP policy, and when the spineless
cowardice or POV-serving connivance of the rest
of the local community does nothing to stop it
after numerous pleadings on WQA and RFC, then
it becomes clear to any non-brainwashed person
that this wiki has fallen and it can't get up.

jon awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Jon_Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o


body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
>>On 6/19/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 6/20/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Of course you don't.
>>>>Should we decide to accept someone who is qualified and experienced it
>>>>would preclude selecting you.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Is there a policy against personal attacks on this list?
>>>
>>
>>You're not qualified or experienced in terms of running a non-profit
>>foundation or large scale publishing, this is a matter of fact. You
>>are tireless politicking for a position on the board.
>>
>>It would be inapproiate to quies criticism of board hopefuls.
>>
>>If I am mistaken and you have no intention of ever serving on the
>>board, please say so publicly and I'll apologise and never again point
>>out that you never do much except worthless posturing.
>>
>>Alternately you could spend some of the time you spend writing
>>proposals and conjecture and instead get something done, and then
>>perhaps I'd have a reason to support you rather than point out how
>>inaccurate the claims you make about your own importance are...
>
> Hoi,
> Sorry to butt in. But I can testify to Erik DOING things.. Have a look
> at http://wiktionaryz.org Much of the technical work done is his. Erik
> has published many designs for improvements of the MediaWiki software,
> asked for comments and modified the designs where needed. Many of these
> projects he proposed are now active parts of projects. Erik has had an
> effect on all projects; he was largely instrumental in creating Commons
> and Wikinews. You may not like the guy, you may not like his ideas but
> he certainly has proved that he influenced the Wikimedia Foundation and
> he is certainly one of the more influential people of our community
>
> My question would be: do /you /know your who is who and, what is /your
> /claim to fame.. ?? I know you from the mailing lists ..
>
> Thanks,
>    GerardM

Hello,

When personA questions personB importance/authority in an organisation,
that does not mean personA claims to be famous himself.

Ant


from_name: Robert Scott Horning

subject: [Textbook-l] Wikiversity

body:
Jon wrote:

>A number of comments:
>
>1. If the aim is to provide multimedia learning materials for all age
>groups, not just university-level, then Wikiversity is a very bad name.
>Go for another one - Wikilearning, Wikicollege, Wikischool, something
>else. Just something which does not automatically imply that it is just
>for university-level learning. Otherwise, you will put off a lot of your
>target audience just with the name. Seriously. Give a dog a bad name...
>well, you know the rest.
>

I know that you have another intention with the name Wikiversity, and
this isn't quite the idea you had in mind for that term.  Still, the
Wikiversity concept as outlined is something that has played out for
some time on Wikibooks, and means a great many things to many people.  I
could go into root words for university as well to demonstrate that
being a university does not necessarily have to be adult learning alone,
nor does it have to stick with traditional topics that are usually
associated with college environments.

>2. Do bear in mind that Wikibooks does use multimedia already -
>at least in terms of audio files - and will wish to continue to do so. Some
>textbooks already have exercises and Q&As. If these can be made
>more dynamic on Wikibooks in the future, then I'm sure they will. Audio
>textbooks also, to my mind, fall within Wikibooks' domain. It's not
>clear to me whether the Wikiversity proposal seeks to dilute effort
>on these elements of textbooks, or not.
>
Honestly it looks like this proposal is going to focus Wikibooks more
into the textbook-only project that you have been advocating lately, not
less.  I would have to agree, however, that there does need to be some
sort of distinction for book-like content that would appear on Wikibooks
and what other kinds of content would be more exclusive to Wikiversity.

>3. The aims Cormac lists for Wikiversity do not appear to agree with
>Michael Irwin's aims for Wikiversity. If the scope is not clear amongst
>the potential initial participants, it sure won't be clear amongst potential
>students.
>
Just read the proposal.  Mr. Irwin has been given plenty of input in the
process as well, and I anticipate that he will be adding much more to
the proposal with this public comment period.  I would even dare say
that I have yet to find even two people that agree 100% on what
Wikiversity really ought to be, although there have been some common themes.

>
>4. Wikiversity seems very ambitious (more ambitious than Wikibooks, and
>Wikibooks, to date, has not yet delivered as much as we would wish). It's
>fair to ask - however noble the ideas- why you think they will work.
>
>Kind regards
>
>Jon
>
>
I could say the same thing about a great many things, including Linux,
and even Wikipedia.  This is trying to suggest that a project that is
just starting out is doomed to failure simply because it isn't already a
complete idea with finished results.  Clearly Wikiversity is going to be
an experiment with a wide range of activities, and it will be
interesting to see what will happen.

One thing that I think admins/moderators on Wikiversity is going to have
to deal with are issues related to explosive growth of its user base.  I
would anticipate even more active editor/contributors on Wikiversity
than currently exist on Wikibooks right now in less than six months, and
perhaps even more if for only the reason that Wikiversity is going to
get hammered with publicity when it is "turned on".  There are a number
of Wikimedia users that are interested in the concept, and have been
cooled off by trying to contribute to the Wikibooks demonstration
project in part because they see that it might be deleted and their
efforts wasted.  By being an independent project, many of these
contributors are going to flock to Wikiversity... especially in the
initial policy debating period as well when they have to sit down and
figure out what the standards should be with some actual content to
reflect against.  In this regard, I think Wikiversity will be much more
successful than Wikibooks, not less so.

--
Robert Scott Horning


body:
Anthere wrote:
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
>> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 6/19/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 6/20/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Of course you don't.
>>>>> Should we decide to accept someone who is qualified and experienced it
>>>>> would preclude selecting you.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Is there a policy against personal attacks on this list?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You're not qualified or experienced in terms of running a non-profit
>>> foundation or large scale publishing, this is a matter of fact. You
>>> are tireless politicking for a position on the board.
>>>
>>> It would be inapproiate to quies criticism of board hopefuls.
>>>
>>> If I am mistaken and you have no intention of ever serving on the
>>> board, please say so publicly and I'll apologise and never again point
>>> out that you never do much except worthless posturing.
>>>
>>> Alternately you could spend some of the time you spend writing
>>> proposals and conjecture and instead get something done, and then
>>> perhaps I'd have a reason to support you rather than point out how
>>> inaccurate the claims you make about your own importance are...
>>>
>> Hoi,
>> Sorry to butt in. But I can testify to Erik DOING things.. Have a look
>> at http://wiktionaryz.org Much of the technical work done is his. Erik
>> has published many designs for improvements of the MediaWiki software,
>> asked for comments and modified the designs where needed. Many of these
>> projects he proposed are now active parts of projects. Erik has had an
>> effect on all projects; he was largely instrumental in creating Commons
>> and Wikinews. You may not like the guy, you may not like his ideas but
>> he certainly has proved that he influenced the Wikimedia Foundation and
>> he is certainly one of the more influential people of our community
>>
>> My question would be: do /you /know your who is who and, what is /your
>> /claim to fame.. ?? I know you from the mailing lists ..
>>
>> Thanks,
>>    GerardM
>>
>
> Hello,
>
> When personA questions personB importance/authority in an organisation,
> that does not mean personA claims to be famous himself.
>
> Ant
Hoi,
PersonA did not question either importance or authority, he questioned
personB's capability. After pointing out that personB has a track record
of accomplishments, it makes sense to ask whether personA knows what he
is talking about. It makes as much sense to ask what accomplishments
personA has as this might indicate first hand experience.
Thanks,
    GerardM


subject: [WikiEN-l] Exit Interview -- Jon Awbrey

body:
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

post 9.

Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> On 6/20/06, Jon Awbrey <jawbrey at att.net> wrote:
> > but when a gang of sophomoric meta-puppets start
> > tracking you back to your more quiet lairs just
> > to wreak whatever destruction they can because
> > you committed the sin of correcting their more
> > obvious errors of fact, that anybody can check
> > from the cites you give, or call them on their
> > deviance from WP policy, and when the spineless
> > cowardice or POV-serving connivance of the rest
> > of the local community does nothing to stop it
> > after numerous pleadings on WQA and RFC, then
> > it becomes clear to any non-brainwashed person
> > that this wiki has fallen and it can't get up.
>
> A couple of assholes means the whole system has collapsed? I don't think so.
>
> Steve

if you refer to post 1, the assertion that i've made is that
the system systematically defends and excuses the e-holes in
preference to ones who e-lect to live by the rules, and, yes,
it'll lead this body of p-articles to anti-material collapse.

jon awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Jon_Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o


body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Anthere wrote:
>
>
>>One problem I have with your list and with Jimbo's list is that they
>>propose very few great candidates from Korea or Madagascar.
>>
>>
>
>I agree with this concern, but how to address it?  I do not know of any
>prominent leaders either "outside" or "inside" Wikipedia from either
>Korea or Madagascar... or similar places.
>
>It is not hard to find community leaders in France and Germany and
>Holland and Italy and... all of the countries where the "international
>crowd" has good connections.  It is harder to find community leaders in
>Japanese and Chinese... we know a few but there is unfortunately not as
>much communication there as we would like, etc.
>
>In terms of well known outsiders to bring into the board for oversight
>and vision and specific talents, again, Korea and Madagascar and
>similar, hmm, we lack knowledge.
>
>
This is where contacts from within Wikimedia projects are very valuable.
 zh.wikipedia has a great many contriburors and interested participants,
many of whom have "credentials" that I believe are exactly what you are
looking for as well.

You seem to have discounted that Wikimedia users have a single mindset
or background, but from my experience there is such a huge diversity in
backgrounds and environments that there shouldn't be too much difficulty
finding a few people from other places to be involved.

How about this list as potential "leaders" to represent Wikimedia
projects from a chinese perspective:

http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Listusers/sysop

I'm sure the list can be narrowed, but it would be a place for me to at
least start from.

I would argue that it would be very difficult to find a greater variety
of individuals on this planet than lists of admins on the various
Wikimedia projects.  Indeed I would issue that as a challenge to anybody
who might want to suggest any other group of approx 10,000 individuals
that has more diversity in terms of languages spoken, political and
religious backgrounds, and economic status.

--
Robert Scott Horning


body:
Lord Voldemort wrote:
> On 6/19/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>My question would be: do /you /know your who is who and, what is /your
>>/claim to fame.. ?? I know you from the mailing lists ..
>
>
> Can we stop all these pot shots and belly aching?  Who gives a crap
> what people's credentials are at this point in time?  If someone does
> decide to try for a Board position, _then_ you can critique him or
> her.  Let's all act like grown ups here.

Errr... Erik explicitely said he was interested in a position on the
board...

But whatever.

> But to the point (and I am sure this has been proposed in some form
> before), for whomever mentioned here that is not eventually on the
> Board, why not just set aside a small portion of the budget to use as
> "consultant fees"? Those not on the Board, but whose opinions would
> help, could be taken on as consultants to make suggestions to the
> Board.  Nothing would be concrete, but some of these people might not
> consult without getting paid.  Others may simply require a nice
> official invitation from Jimmy or WMF in general.
>
> I am under the impression that anyone can come in to make suggestions,
> but perhaps asking nicely would drum up some advice (if we are indeed
> looking for it). If much of this (consultant fees) has been suggested
> before, would you mind pointing in the right direction? Thanks.  --LV

Actually... we have used advice from outside parties on a pro-bono
basis. For newbie, that means someone accept to work for free for the
Foundation - in exchange, they (the person or the firm) get some
fame/advertisement and most presumably, this can be deduced as "gift to
a charity" in term of tax.
This was for example the case of Brad law firm and is the case as well
for a PR agency giving us advice from time to time.
Other "legal" entities have also helped against fees (I do not know if
we got a "special" price).

I believe RMS and others regularly give "advice" to how the Foundation
or the projects should be run (just as journalists, librairians etc do
...). These advices are given to Jimbo during conferences they attend
together. We have from time to time some feedback about opinion of one
or another about the way we should go for licensing or other topics...
My only problem with this type of "advice" is that the advice is not
given to the board, but to Jimbo. If the Foundation was to pay for
advice, I would ask that the Foundation be informed. Not one member
exclusively.
This said, I would be hesitant to pay someone to give me some advice...
with the full knowledge that the advice would be entached with the
personal agenda of its provider (surely, Lessig would not advice us
against his interest).
Note that this is also the reason why I am not so happy with having a
famous person with a strong agenda on the (governing) board.

ant


subject: [Commons-l] Image donations?

body:
On 6/15/06, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:
> I was wondering if there is some kind of organized effort to ask
> photographers and image agencies for donations (read: GFDL- or
> CC-licensing) of images.

Last year I thought a bit about the idea of having a dedicated "image
fundraising" campaign for Commons, which could perhaps run alongside
the next regular fundraiser. The idea is that there would be a
simplified upload process, and a post-upload vetting system to
determine which material is actually useful. I proposed this to
another Wikimedian, who unfortunately did not end up finding the time
to work on it. Here are a few of the mock-ups I made on paper:

http://scireview.de/wiki/donations1.jpg
http://scireview.de/wiki/donations2.jpg
http://scireview.de/wiki/donations3.jpg

(Sorry for the poor quality, this is done with a camera, not a scanner.)

The idea is, as is hopefully clear, to have a simple two-step process
for uploading and describing the pictures. All the licensing stuff
would be made as simple as possible, with reasonable default choices.
Aside from advertising this online, we could approach some
publications systematically. Given how much Wikipedia is loved by the
media, I think getting a story out there "Wikipedia asks for photo
donations" wouldn't be too hard.

The actual post-upload review would be done in a collaborative review
process similar to my FlickrLickr project. In fact, the FlickrLickr
codebase might be a useful basis for this.

Magnus, are you interested in working on such a project? Anyone else?

Best,
Erik


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Thumbnail params,
	Was: Image uploads now undeletable

body:
On 6/20/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> Re: "crop" and "zoom" - seems like it would have very undesirable
> "suprise" consequences if the original file was replaced (and changed
> dimensions - for example if it itself was cropped).

Post upload cropping would become a discouraged behavior if such a
feature were implemented. But I do see your point, ultimately it's the
uploaders responsibility to check where a file is used.   One time I
had a picture of a firing xenon strob replaced with a video game
character.... (flash.gif DOH) :)

> Sharpness could be good though. See
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Low_sharpness
> for a striking example.

Ha. I hadn't seen that one. I think the photoimpact version is too
sharp, and I'd prefer something a little more in between.  The folks
in the thread are off in space however... This problem has nothing to
do with our JPEG size (although I strongly believe that our jpeg
quality setting should be increased somewhat as well).

I've added another example, which is prepared with imagemagick (same
software as Mediawiki). It's the same file size as the Mediawiki jpeg
thumb, but it looks pretty much just like the png.


body:
On 6/20/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Errr... Erik explicitely said he was interested in a position on the
> board...

Angela posted a recent thread  "Would you consider being on the
Board?" It seems that stating my explicit readiness to serve on the
Board now makes constant accusations of "campaigning" and deep
personal attacks of any kind allowable. Gregory was right about one
thing: It's no surprise that only few people commented publicly in
that thread. I was stupid enough to do so.

Erik


from_name: Richard Wooding

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikipedia: Importing template namespace

body:
Hi,

I have downloaded enwiki-latest-pages-articles.xml.bz2, and have a version
of Wikimedia checked out from subversion (with relevant extension added as
well).

I issue the following commands:

bzip2 -d enwiki-latest-pages-articles.xml.bz2
cat enwiki-latest-pages-articles.xml | php5 maintenance/importDump.php

My question is:

Does this XML file include the Template: namespace, on completion will pages
with references to templates render.

Regards
Richard Wooding


body:
On 6/20/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yep. Look, while we're at it, some more requests:
> In-place modifications of the following types:
> - increase/decrease contrast
> - increase/decrease brightness

That thought of this makes me uncomfortable.  Many people have
uncalibrated monitors and weird tastes in brightness and contrast,
it's hard to be objective about such changes.. please see the
miniessay on the last bullet of my commons userpage
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gmaxwell). Such knobs would
also encourage shed painting and create an unneccessary proliferation
of additional versions.

> - rotate arbitrary angle

I don't think this can be done without loading the entire uncompressed
image into memory which pretty much makes it a non-starter.

[snip]
> Totally in accordance with the wiki principle too: one person takes a
> happysnap and uploads it - the smallest effort possible. Someone else
> discovers its imperfections, adds a straighten. Someone else increases
> the contrast. Someone else defines a good thumbnail. Each person
> contributes a small, atomic action, with the lowest cost of effort
> possible.

It doesn't always play out so rosey...  Sometimes someone spends hours
getting a photograph just right (because unlike wikitext, even in the
best case 98% of the work must be done by a single photographer) and
they are proud of their work. Then along comes a self appointed
wiki-photo expert... who goofs up the image to fit his tastes on his
uncalibrated display and insists that it's better. Perhaps the new
version is more contrasty, with over pumped saturation and
sharpness.... At first glance it's more eye catching, so other passers
by support the changed version, but it's lost it's depth, lost detail
in the shadow, or just lost it's ability to captivate for more than a
moment. Perhaps it's cropped to place the subject dead center,
destroying the careful balence achieved in the photo which guides the
eye...

We've had photographers leave in digust over this.

Wikinews permits unfree images (CC-BY-ND) as a result of this.

So I'm a bit hesitant to suggest we provided technical tools which may
encourage bad aspects of our behavior.  But this has gone wayyyy
off-topic now. :)  Once someone impliments some of this stuff we can
debate the merits of turning it on.


body:
Samuel Klein wrote:

>>ARTICLE II
>>Section 4. Community.
>>The Foundation acknowledges the valuable contributions of volunteers
>>throughout the world for their dedication and tremendous work. The
>>Foundation defines as one of its purposes the enhancement of the various
>>Wikimedia communities throughout the world in their respective languages.
>>
>>
>This would be an unfortunate first sentence.  Foundations do not usually
>acknowledge the contributions of projects they support.  The contributions
>of donors, perhaps...
>
>More generally : I am surprised to see the term "volunteer" has come to be
>used in these discussions as a way of distinguishing some contributors
>form the Foundation; at times in a lightly patronizing context
>('volunteer' as opposed to 'professional' / 'expert' / 'dedicated')...
>similar to the way "amateur" has come to mean "dilletante" or "unpaid"
>rather than "connoisseur".
>
>I expect that Wikipedians of all people have a sense of generativity,
>active creation, and public responsibility which transcends the notion of
>'volunteering' for a cause.
>
>When one returns home to fix the plumbing in a parents' house, does one
>call it "volunteering"?  No.  Participating in a barn-raising for a
>neighbor, or rebuilding one's own community after a storm?  Likewise no.
>Neither is it "volunteering" to create part of a public art project, tend
>a community garden, write the biography of a hero, or spending an evening
>in language-exchange.
>
>Wikipedians "contributing" to the public store of knowledge are simply
>doing for their own global community what most people on the planet should
>come to do -- sharing what they know, and helping others do the same.
>
My objections are to the whole section.  That would not be fixed by
semantic variations on the word "volunteer"

>>Roughly, this model would be what I would qualify as a Private
>>Foundation. Or Business Foundation. It is a Foundation which focus a lot
>>on the efficiency of business (except that there is no business
>>
>>
>A pity, for a foundation with as much promise as this one has to change
>the world.
>
>>The Apache model is entirely different. I would call it a public
>>Foundation or a Community Foundation. Majority of members would be
>>garanteed from the community. There would be term limits.
>>
>Right.
>
These are the important distinctions if we are ever to avoid being
overrun by corporatism.

>>The second model will be more lively. A bazaar of some sorts. We could
>>expect the board to get more involved in every-day running. More
>>volunteer work probably. It will be much more difficult to organise,
>>because of the noises of campaigning from new candidates, of the public
>>discussions. It will be more of a social construction. Less stable due
>>to turn-over of board members. We would not have such a good image in US
>>business, but we might be loved by free-movement organizations and
>>citizens all over the world.
>>I suppose we'll have less money... but we may have more ideas because of
>>the boiling culture.
>>
>>
>I wouldn't say "by free-movement organizations and citizens" -- but simply
>"by individuals" all over the world.  Many people who don't get 'free
>culture' or 'FOSS' at all, and don't care, get Wikipedia (great project)
>-- and get *really* interested when they find out the extent to which it
>is guided by a broad and milling community.
>
Yes, it is easy to interpret public perceptions as something more than
what they are.  Editors who find that things are going well in the
article set that interests them are not going to feel at all concerned
with governance issues.  When you raise these philosophical issues with
them the most intelligent response will be, "Duh?"  If you press them to
take a stand the results will be unpredictable.  Perhaps I'm a little
more cynical in saying that they don't give a damn what kind of
community it comes from.

>>I thought it over and over. I am not sure which one of the two models
>>would be best for the goals of the Foundation. According to our habits,
>>we would say "first option". But are we not precisely amongst those who
>>proved that a decentralized, transparent model, largely based on
>>volunteer work and using the goodwill of non-expert people may be
>>successful ?
>>
>>
>Not only successful.  Exuberantly, outrageously successful, orders of
>magnitude beyond the dreams of the initial participants.  There are
>subtleties in what has worked here that have never before been effectively
>explored.  Some are still mysterious, which is why small groups of editors
>/ meta-editors / policy writers often have trouble tapping them as needed
>to work on specific projects.
>
Definitely!  A soft stream of air when starting a compfire will
encourage it to grow.  A hard wind is likely to put it out.

Ec


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Exit Interview -- Jon Awbrey

body:
On 6/20/06, Jon Awbrey <jawbrey at att.net> wrote:
> when i started out, i called a spade a spade.
> things that any mature adult, not to mention
> trained scholar, would call obvious vandalism,
> manifest disruption, uninformed statements, or
> malformed citation are things that i described
> in precisely those terms.  and all i got was
> one dire warning after another that you just
> aren't allowed to say those sorts of things.

I'd agree here that 'No Personal Attacks' gets over-used at times;
used to stifle criticism of edits, which it should not.  I haven't
looked at the specific examples of disputes you've been involved in,
however.

Which is not to say that one should be impolite, but one should be
allowed to be accurate.

-Matt


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 6/19/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> I was thinking about possible changes to the MediaWiki parsing engine
> to accommodate this better (like changing the reinterpretation of ''''
> from bold+' to ''), but I don't think many of them are good. The main
> confusion with suggestions like yours is being able to easily talk
> about the category etc in question:

Heh, just yesterday I was going to write that '''' would almost never
be used to mean "apostrophe followed by bold".  Today, I used it at
French Wikipedia in the first sentence of an article:

L''''oeuf mimosa'''...

Nothing better than discovering one's own shortsightedness so soon!

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] New York Times article

body:
On 6/20/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think they are at: http://stats.wikimedia.org/
>
> (And for the record, I can't see how the journalist could possibly
> have come up with reliable age statistics on admins. I don't recall
> ever being asked my age nor ever posting it. I suspect the same is
> true for most admins.)

There have been several surveys. You don't need to ask *everyone*
their age to make an estimate...

Steve


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Conservative notice board

body:
Sam Korn wrote:
> On 6/19/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>> But people are not doing that. People are discussing why they want it.
>> If you cannot tollerate discussion you have lost.
>
> Please can we remove all reference to "winning" or "losing" from this
> mailing list.  We are all working for Wikipedia.  We aren't looking to
> win.  We may disagree, and one person's opinion may prevail.
> Wikipedia wins or loses, not Tony Sidaway, Geni or Sam Korn.
>
> Suggesting that Tony was seeking to "win" is provocative, puerile and
> completely unnecessary.
>

YHBT. YHL...

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060620/9bfa800c/attachment.pgp


from_name: John Tex

subject: [WikiEN-l] MS Word to Wiki markup converter (Johntex)

body:
>
> Hello,
>
> I think it is time to inform the community about the Word2MediaWikiPlus
> converter I wrote:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Word2MediaWikiPlus
>
> Download macro and installer directly:
> http://www.beadsoft.de/files/Word2MediaWikiPlus.zip
>
> To improve the acceptance of the wiki software in our company I needed a
> user friendly converter.
>
> This converter comes with an installation routine, has comfortably
> dialog boxes and works with the english and german office versions.
>
> If you have MS Photo Editor installed, it will extract and upload images
> from the document, too.
>
> It converts most things found in normal documents, like
>
> - text formatting and colors
> - headings
> - lists
> - tables, also nested
> - images
> - footnotes
> - page headers and footers
> - text boxes
> - framed paragraphs
>
> By now I find it easier to write in Word and convert, especially tables.
> This macro can be used as an image extractor of the document, without
> any wiki usage.
>
> It has been extensivly tested and can be considered as a stable beta
> release.
>
> Since the macro can be localized, I would like contact to users, who use
> a non german and non english Microsoft office.
>
> Enjoy,
> Gunter

Hello Gunter,

Thanks for sharing this great tool with us.  One note is that on Office 2003
(English), it seems necesary to allow access to VB projects in order for the
install to work.

I have e-mailed you screenshots from installation in the English version,
which you may distribute freely in future versions of the installer if you
would like.

Best,
Johntex


body:
On 6/20/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> Consider the case where we have a historical photograph showing several
> notable people. We have the option of simply showing the same image against
> each of those people, or uploading multiple cropped fragments showing each
> person in turn.
>
> Imagine the possibilities of uploading a single image showing all those
> people and then being able to show just the appropriate face in the article,
> linking through to the main image for context.

Yep. Look, while we're at it, some more requests:
In-place modifications of the following types:
- increase/decrease contrast
- increase/decrease brightness
- rotate arbitrary angle

I very frequently come across images which are less than perfect in
very easily fixable ways. A small number of these make it to WP:FPC
where they tend to get fixed. The rest don't, because it's too much
work to download the image, modify it, save it, and re-upload. If I
had to do nothing more than add {{IMAGE-STRAIGHTEN:-4.5}} to an image
description page, I would do it much more frequently.

Totally in accordance with the wiki principle too: one person takes a
happysnap and uploads it - the smallest effort possible. Someone else
discovers its imperfections, adds a straighten. Someone else increases
the contrast. Someone else defines a good thumbnail. Each person
contributes a small, atomic action, with the lowest cost of effort
possible.

Steve