subject: [Wikipedia-l] Two issues here:

body:
--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Tomos wrote:
> > Similar things, but with different conditions, would apply for
> > admins of other language-wikis. So, sometimes, even if the content
> > is perfectly legal to host in a U.S. server, it would have to be
> > deleted by an admin in another country.
>
> Uh, no. The /only/ thing that counts is the legality of having
> the material on  a server in the US. What is legal for the user
> to submit to Wikipedia is entirely up to the individual user, his
> or her nation and the amount of risk the user is willing to take.
>
> The /only/ laws that matter here are the ones of California and the
> US. So if the material violates California and US law, /then/, and
> only then, can it be deleted on legal grounds.

If I understood Tomos correctly, his point was this: a user posts
material to Wikipedia in violation of his country's laws, but not in
violation of US/CA laws. Somebody from that country notices the
violation, complains to an admin from that country and demands the
removal of the material. If the admin doesn't comply, they could
conceivably become liable under the laws of their own country.

Axel

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz

subject: [Wikipedia-l] interlingual use of image

body:
On 17-05-2003, Anthere wrote thusly :
> --- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee at piclab.com> wrote:
> > > (Tomos at Wikipedia <wiki_tomos at hotmail.com>):
> > > As I understand, there are two ways to use an
> > image from
> > > another language-wikipedia...
> > > Is one way more recommended than the other?
> >
> > Images should not be shared among Wikipedias. it is
> > our goal
> > to have each Wikipedia be complete and
> > self-contained, except
> > for links to the Internet at large. Disk space is
> > cheap--if
> > the same image appears in 10 wikis, then it should
> > be uploaded
> > 10 times and linked locally in each.  That way, when
> > we make
> > a backup of each wiki, each backup contains the
> > whole content.
>
> Perhaps
> Would it be thinkable then, that when we upload an
> image, on whatever wikipedia, we have a list provided
> with the opportunity to add the other wikipedia to
> which we want to add the image at the same time.
> Somehow, a common place for upload ? With as many
> description areas as languages chosen.
> Hence, we would have separate space, but common upload
> facility ?
IMO, a very good idea.

Another helpful feature would be image upload announce mailing list
that automaticly sends posts from about new image upload from all Wikipedias.
Interested Wikipedians subscribed to the list could more easily keep
track of newly arrived resources and improve resource sharing in this way.

Aggregated recent image upload page is another possibility.

Regards,
Kpjas.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Two issues here:

body:
Axel Boldt wrote:

>--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Tomos wrote:
>>
>>>Similar things, but with different conditions, would apply for
>>>admins of other language-wikis. So, sometimes, even if the content
>>>is perfectly legal to host in a U.S. server, it would have to be
>>>deleted by an admin in another country.
>>>
>>Uh, no. The /only/ thing that counts is the legality of having
>>the material on  a server in the US. What is legal for the user
>>to submit to Wikipedia is entirely up to the individual user, his
>>or her nation and the amount of risk the user is willing to take.
>>
>>The /only/ laws that matter here are the ones of California and the
>>US. So if the material violates California and US law, /then/, and
>>only then, can it be deleted on legal grounds.
>>
>
>If I understood Tomos correctly, his point was this: a user posts
>material to Wikipedia in violation of his country's laws, but not in
>violation of US/CA laws. Somebody from that country notices the
>violation, complains to an admin from that country and demands the
>removal of the material. If the admin doesn't comply, they could
>conceivably become liable under the laws of their own country.
>
This is the way I understood Tomos's point, and I don't think Mav
misunderstood it either.  I agree with Mav's analysis, and the only
thing that would change that would be to have the server in an other
jurisdiction.

GNU-FL issues and our principle that the user does not own the content
also play a role.  The contributor's ownership ends when he presses
"save".  At that point the legal jurisdiction is transferred from the
user's country to the server's country, so where is the admin's liability.

Suppose too that the admin does comply with the demand (and there is no
question about liability in the server country).  I, as resident of a
third country or even of the server country, can revert the deletion.
 What liability would then exist in the country of the original
contributor and administrator?

Ec


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Getting rid of nicknames

body:
tarquin wrote:

> Three options:
> 1. remove the function (ie, exercise "dev power" and remove it for all
> the well-behaved people)
> 2. allow sysops / devs to edit the nicknames of users who are abusing
> (sysop power)
> 3. suggest that *anyone* feel free to edit an instance of a  signature
> that obscures the real user name, just by editing the wiki text. (people
> power)
>
> I'd say go with 3.

I support 2.

3 is in fact the status quo, but it contains a lot of potential for abuse.

Rc


list: wikien-l

from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: The clitoris guy

body:
--- Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --- Anthere <anthere6 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Interesting proposition. Especially since Canada
> is
> > also speaking French. I note that no french
> canadian
> > contributors has ever complained a contribution
> was
> > liable by canadian law.
>
> Well, isn't the French Wiki Parisian French and not
> Canadian French? Is there a difference between the
> two
> when written?
>
> --LittleDan

It is difficult to know as Canada is far away from
Europe (french is not only spoken in France but also
Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland...). Hence, Canadians
and Europeans don't meet very often. Tough to know
where the differences lie.

I learnt from Montrealais though, that French people
write "gay" when Canadians write "gai".

Belgian people also say septante when french say
soixante dix. (seventy) :-)

The french wiki should *absolutely not* be parisien.
It should be from everywhere. Africa also. And a
couple of asian countries. And others european
countries where french is largely known. Romania for
example. If you know of any african or vietnamese
person speaking french, please offer them to join Daniel:-)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [WikiEN-l] TheStick (vandal) banned

body:
I have banned User:TheStick, a repeat vandal, as per Jimbo's policy, where
in these cases, banning a signed in user is allowed without further
discussion with him. See:

http://www.wikipedia.org/w/
wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=TheStick

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Blocking logged in users

body:
Sannse-
> Any news on this being made possible?  I know it will have disadvantages and
> limitations, but after a couple of hours reverting silliness it starts to
> look very useful.

See wikien-l, I have banned TheStick. Please drop a note on my or Brion's
talk page if he comes back. I agree that we need a better long term
solution.

Regards,
Erik (User:Eloquence)


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: photography and POV

body:
On 5/17/03 10:48 AM, "koyaanis qatsi" <obchodnakorze at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I read my email this morning, and yuck.  It's more
> than a littl peevish.  I apologize for the tone of it,
> it's quite inappropriate.
>
> Maybe we could set up a page on meta discussing photos
> and POV.  the topic has come up at least twice on
> wikipedia in the last year, though I'm not sure where.
> I thought one of them was [[talk:Rachel Corrie]] but
> it wasn't.  then I thought maybe [[talk:Saddam
> Hussein]] and yes, somewhat, but that's also not the
> discussion I was thinking of.

As I've said, a big part of the broken usage of POV and NPOV on Wikipedia to
mean something other than what God intended.

(Namely, that the neutral point of view is a Platonic ideal.)


from_name: Geoffrey Thomas

subject: [WikiEN-l] New domain for censored content?

body:
My school has a very ruthless blocking system by 8e6
technologies installed on their outgoing proxy. They
block any page that might be offensive without
considering the consequences. Once they even blocked
the Science Olympiad home page shortly before
Nationals - presumably because Geocities hosted it and
also some other offensive site, and they blocked the
IP. They occasionally packet-sniff the internet
connection to find offensive sites. They block
everything - even online games and the like. If
Wikipedia starts showing offensive content it'll be
the last day we see it at our school. There is a
difference here between offensive-inappropriate and
offensive-unpopular. The only ones of the latter they
might block is 2600 or Join Al Qaeda Now.com.

I propose a new domain, set up like an international
Wikipedia, uncensored.wikipedia.org, to contain all
questionable material - pages France doesn't like,
pages China doesn't like, pages filtering software
doesn't like, etc. All questionable content can have
the link '''An uncensored version of this page is
available [[u:This page|here]].''' at the bottom, and
pictures should be available by either
[[u:Image:offensivepicture.png]] or
[[Image:u:offensivepicture.png]] (whichever is easier
for the software). Blocking programs/governments will
see the rendered HTML link to  or  and block
_that_ domain, not www.wikipedia.org (or fr., or zh.,
etc.). If we know some governments/schools proxy IPs,
we could even filter all u: links out to save
Wikipedia, and sensitive users (anonymous too, by
default, if wanted) can check an option in preferences
for either "Disable uncensored links" or "Do not
display uncensored pictures" - the latter would give a
mere link to the picture.

On a side note, do we actually need to upload pictures
to every Wikipedia, or can we save disk space by,
e.g., letting other language Wikipedias link to
[[en:Image:logo.png]]? If we can, the u: would be an
obvious solution - as easy as setting up another
language. If not, and this is too hard to set up, u's
Image namespace (linked to [[u:Image:]]) can instead
be required to have [[Image:]] links to itself, and
all users would act as if "Do not display" were
checked. (See the Image page for the picture on
[[Kitten]] for an example.)

Also, this server should be run on a different IP -
either that one Bomis said it had (didn't it?), on
Pliny when Larousse becomes the absolute server, or on
ibiblio. IP blocking is as common as domain blocking,
so a virtual host might not suffice. (Maybe you could
just get another $15 Ethernet card into a server, let
that take another IP, and only serve uncensored on
that IP?)

--[[User:Geoffrey]]

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Two issues here:

body:
Ec wrote:
>...
> GNU-FL issues and our principle that the user does not own the content
> also play a role.  The contributor's ownership ends when he presses
> "save".  At that point the legal jurisdiction is transferred from the
> user's country to the server's country, so where is the admin's liability.
>...

Disclaimer: IANAL

This is incorrect. Here is what people agree to when they submit; "Please note
that all contributions to Wikipedia are considered to be released under the
GNU Free Documentation License." Nowhere in there does it state that the user
"looses ownership" or even "transferres control" over to anybody else.

In fact the submitter by default keeps copyright ownership but agrees to
license a version of the uploaded text under the terms of the GNU FDL. So if
the submitter is legally able to do this, then Wikipedia has a version of the
submitters text in the GNU FDL.

And due to the nature of the GNU FDL /that version/ can never be changed to a
different license but the person who submitted the text can theoretically
make a different version under any license they wish. But in reality the
submitter has effectively liberated the GNU FDL version of the text (hence it
is free in the Free Software sense).

It is a very important thing that we continue to have things work this way
since if all copyright ownership were given to a single copyright holder
(such as a Wikimedia Foundation or even Jimbo), then it would be possible to
create a proprietary fork of the whole project. The way it is now each and
every person who has ever contributed to Wikipedia would have to agree
licensing a version of their work under a proprietary license in order to
create a proprietary fork.

I for one would drop dead before agreeing to create a proprietary fork of my
30,000 + edits. I'm certain that this sentiment is shared by a majority of
past and present Wikipedia contributors. So because of this (and the fact
that it will be impossible to track down all anonymous contributors)
Wikipedia will never have a proprietary fork.

Wikpedia will always be free. There is a great deal of power in that
statement, no?

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


from_name: Zoe

subject: [WikiEN-l] vandalism

body:
We have another vandal -- No-Fx, who is also the
former, now banned Michael, who has also recently been
using the logged-in name Michaelese.  He's
aggressively attacking several music articles.  And
demanding to be the only person allowed to edit
certain pages.

Zoe

--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> koyaanis qatsi wrote:
>
> >We're having a fairly persistent vandal right now.
> >
> >Since I'm not a developer, it's fairly easy for me
> to
> >make suggestions.  :-)  I know it's a joke among
> >programmers--"this will be simple," etc.
> >
> Simple solutions like simple politicians make things
> too complicated. :-)
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


from_name: Marco Krohn

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: The clitoris guy

body:
On Friday 16 May 2003 23:42, Toby Bartels wrote:

> Right, we need 3 servers in all (as I see it):
> * A server in the US for its protection of political expression;
> * A server in France for its acceptance of nudity; and
> * A server in Australia for its short copyright protection.

is Australia also a safe place for publishing information that violates the US
DMCA (encryption/decryption research etc.)?

best regards,
  Marco

--
Marco Krohn
Theoretical Physics
University of Hannover


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Thomas Corell

subject: [Wikitech-l] SpecialContributions.php

body:
I found this in SpecialContributions.php (about line 72):

if ( 0 == $nCur && 0 == $nOld && 0 == $rcrows ) {
   $wgOut->addHTML( "\n<p>" . wfMsg( "nocontribs" ) . "</p>\n" );
   return;
}

What I'm missing is the $rcrows variable initialisation. Hopefully php init
it with 0, but I'm not sure.

Possibly Lee or Brion have an idea :)

--
Smurf

smurf at AdamAnt.mud.de
-------------------------  Anthill inside! ---------------------------


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: photography and POV

body:
On Sat, 17 May 2003, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> As they used to say back on The Farm:  "All Points of View are neutral
> but some are more neutral than others." ;-)
>
Well, ask anyone, & you'll most likely be told, ``I have a perfectly
NPOV. It's the rest of you who are biassed & don't know all of the important
facts." ;-)

Geoff


from_name: sannse

subject: [WikiEN-l] User preferences changes

body:
Brion wrote:

>>sannse wrote:
>> *There is sometimes a problem with tables when the preview is at the top:
>> If the article text is shorter than the table, the table disappears under
>> the text entry box on preview.  See http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azawakh
>> for example.  I think we need a <br clear="all"> before the text entry
box?

>Done, please test.

Yep, that's done it.  Thanks!

sannse


from_name: tarquin

subject: [Wikipedia-l] test

body:
Testing.

None of my recent emails to this list come back to me as list posts.
(but my emails to individuals work)

could at least one person email me direct if you guys get this.
thanks
- tarquin


from_name: Axel Boldt

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Getting rid of nicknames

body:
--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:

[nickname feature has been abused]

> I agree with you on this. However, I fail to see how we can reach
> consensus here,

No problem: we simply do. Let me just work my magic here :-)

> since there are obviously quite a few people who
> enjoy using the feature, and in all fairness, they would
> have to be asked individually if they agree to it being disabled.

Nobody has to be asked individually about anything. If you don't speak
up in a debate, your opinion doesn't count.

Axel

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


from_name: Andrew Smith

subject: [Wikipedia-l] test

body:
Yup, it worked.

Ams80

----- Original Message -----
From: "tarquin" <tarquin at planetunreal.com>
To: "Wikipedia-L" <wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 3:42 PM
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] test

> Testing.
>
> None of my recent emails to this list come back to me as list posts.
> (but my emails to individuals work)
>
> could at least one person email me direct if you guys get this.
> thanks
> - tarquin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Two issues here:

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

> The contributor's ownership ends when he presses
> "save".  At that point the legal jurisdiction is transferred from the
> user's country to the server's country, so where is the admin's
> liability.

To use an example that is sure to make everybody's blood boil: suppose
you are an admin on an open web site that's located in a country where
child porn is legal. Someone posts child porn there. Your country's
police asks you to remove it. You refuse, arguing that your country's
jurisdiction doesn't apply to the server. I don't really want to be in
your shoes.

Axel

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikitech-l] SpecialContributions.php

body:
Mark Wojtowicz wrote:
> "Thomas Corell" said:
>
> I don't know where or if $rcrows is initialized, but uninitialized variables
> in PHP 4 are set to NULL which == 0.

Fine, I hoped it.
I see I did not explain it clearly: 'grep -i rcrows' in the CVS only showed
the mentioned line. I think the comparison is useless, but I'm not as fit
as e.g. Lee with the code.

--
Smurf

smurf at AdamAnt.mud.de
-------------------------  Anthill inside! ---------------------------


from_name: Daniel Ehrenberg

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: photography and POV

body:
--- Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
> Well, ask anyone, & you'll most likely be told, ``I
> have a perfectly
> NPOV. It's the rest of you who are biassed & don't
> know all of the important
> facts." ;-)
>
> Geoff

Sorry that this is kinda off, but is should NPOV be
treated gramatically as a noun, or a adj-noun phrase?
I just like to write grammatically, and that your post
sounded weird. I always assumed NPOV should be treated
as a noun.

--LittleDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


from_name: Stephen C. Carlson

subject: [WikiEN-l] TheStick (vandal) banned

body:
At 12:24 PM 5/17/03 +0200, Erik Moeller wrote:
>I have banned User:TheStick, a repeat vandal, as per Jimbo's policy, where
>in these cases, banning a signed in user is allowed without further
>discussion with him.

This case is not even close.  Good call.

Stephen
--
Stephen C. Carlson                        mailto:scarlson at mindspring.com
Synoptic Problem Home Page   http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 2.35


body:
I'm glad there's another kid on Wikipedia.

Luckilly, my school doesn't block many sites, but
because of this, it is slated to loose funding from
the state. For schools blocking Wikipedia, I don't
think they'd bother blocking only
uncensored.wikipedia.org, anyway; they'd just block
the whole thing.

If we made that new domain name, most of wikipedia
would have to be transfered onto it. It would be
pointless. Every country says that we can't do this or
that, and soon Wikipedia is all in the uncensored
domain. The only thing that might work is putting
pictures potentially viewed as 'pornography' or just
'inapropriate' in general be put in the uncensored
domain. Once again, that would be a POV decision, but
I think we need to narrow it down to one specific
category. Instead of having the link to the picture
like there is now, it could just be added or removed
automatically based on your prefrences. In the
preferences box, you could have:
[ ] Censor inapropriate content
or something like that, checked as default. If a
blocking company were looking at Wikipedia, they
wouldn't see any potentially dangerous images.
Checking the box could also censor curse words, like
replacing fuck with f*** automatically. Of course,
this isn't really censorship (just like the below
suggestion isn't) because it can be easilly worked
around> But Google and schools will see Wikipedia as a
good, censored source. It would also eliminate the
links saying "click here for the uncensored version",
because schools wouldn't like that. If you wanted to
be really complicated, you could make a new subdomain,
u.wikipedia.org, that would use the same database but
be UNcensored by default. To get past some filters, it
would need to use a different IP adress, which would
make it very complicated to implement. This whole
thing is probably too complicated a sugestion and will
never get implemented, though.

--- Geoffrey Thomas <geoffreyerffoeg at yahoo.com> wrote:
> My school has a very ruthless blocking system by 8e6
> technologies installed on their outgoing proxy. They
> block any page that might be offensive without
> considering the consequences. Once they even blocked
> the Science Olympiad home page shortly before
> Nationals - presumably because Geocities hosted it
> and
> also some other offensive site, and they blocked the
> IP. They occasionally packet-sniff the internet
> connection to find offensive sites. They block
> everything - even online games and the like. If
> Wikipedia starts showing offensive content it'll be
> the last day we see it at our school. There is a
> difference here between offensive-inappropriate and
> offensive-unpopular. The only ones of the latter
> they
> might block is 2600 or Join Al Qaeda Now.com.
>
> I propose a new domain, set up like an international
> Wikipedia, uncensored.wikipedia.org, to contain all
> questionable material - pages France doesn't like,
> pages China doesn't like, pages filtering software
> doesn't like, etc. All questionable content can have
> the link '''An uncensored version of this page is
> available [[u:This page|here]].''' at the bottom,
> and
> pictures should be available by either
> [[u:Image:offensivepicture.png]] or
> [[Image:u:offensivepicture.png]] (whichever is
> easier
> for the software). Blocking programs/governments
> will
> see the rendered HTML link to <img
> src="http://uncensored.wikipedia.org/..."> or <a
> href="http://uncensored.wikipedia.org/..."> and
> block
> _that_ domain, not www.wikipedia.org (or fr., or
> zh.,
> etc.). If we know some governments/schools proxy
> IPs,
> we could even filter all u: links out to save
> Wikipedia, and sensitive users (anonymous too, by
> default, if wanted) can check an option in
> preferences
> for either "Disable uncensored links" or "Do not
> display uncensored pictures" - the latter would give
> a
> mere link to the picture.
>
> On a side note, do we actually need to upload
> pictures
> to every Wikipedia, or can we save disk space by,
> e.g., letting other language Wikipedias link to
> [[en:Image:logo.png]]? If we can, the u: would be an
> obvious solution - as easy as setting up another
> language. If not, and this is too hard to set up,
> u's
> Image namespace (linked to [[u:Image:]]) can instead
> be required to have [[Image:]] links to itself, and
> all users would act as if "Do not display" were
> checked. (See the Image page for the picture on
> [[Kitten]] for an example.)
>
> Also, this server should be run on a different IP -
> either that one Bomis said it had (didn't it?), on
> Pliny when Larousse becomes the absolute server, or
> on
> ibiblio. IP blocking is as common as domain
> blocking,
> so a virtual host might not suffice. (Maybe you
> could
> just get another $15 Ethernet card into a server,
> let
> that take another IP, and only serve uncensored on
> that IP?)
>
> --[[User:Geoffrey]]
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


from_name: koyaanis qatsi

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: vandalism

body:
Erik writes:
> blocked IP addresses won't be able to make edits,
> period. The problem is that I can't nail the
> vandal's IP without shell access to the server,

What about if the login page came up 404 if you're
asking for it from a banned IP? ... probably one of
those "simple" solutions that really isn't.

kq

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: photography and POV

body:
LittleDan wrote:
> Sorry that this is kinda off, but is should NPOV be
> treated gramatically as a noun, or a adj-noun phrase?
> I just like to write grammatically, and that your post
> sounded weird. I always assumed NPOV should be treated
> as a noun.
>

It depends on the context.

Our policy called "NPOV" is a noun but that term is also used as an adjective
("This article is NPOV" ; tc hates this usage) or a verb ("I'll try to NPOV
the article").

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


from_name: Kurt Jansson

subject: [Wikitech-l] User preferences changes

body:
Brion Vibber schrieb:
> More guinea-pigging for the new server. :)  Some slight changes
> installed on the English wiki and put in CVS:
>
> [X] Show preview before edit box and not after it
>   (default: on)

Thanks Brion!

>   (While we're on the subject, may I propose moving the copyright/
>   license notice to come _before_ the save button so people will
>   actually be able to see it?)

Please do this. Maybe with an option for logged in users to put the
button above the notice, because it's a bit more comfortable.

Kurt


subject: [Wikitech-l] User preferences changes

body:
Kurt Jansson wrote:
> Brion Vibber schrieb:
>>   (While we're on the subject, may I propose moving the copyright/
>>   license notice to come _before_ the save button so people will
>>   actually be able to see it?)

> Please do this. Maybe with an option for logged in users to put the
> button above the notice, because it's a bit more comfortable.

Or much better: with an option to switch the copyright message of, for
users with more than 100 edit's or so ;)

--
Smurf

smurf at AdamAnt.mud.de
-------------------------  Anthill inside! ---------------------------


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Getting rid of nicknames

body:
--- tarquin <tarquin at planetunreal.com> wrote:
>
>
> Thomas Corell wrote:
>
> > Sorry, but as I see it, nicknames are coded as
> [[Login|Nick]] if you
> > use the sign functinality (~~~~). And e.g. Mozilla
> shows ''Login'' in
> > this yellow floating popup. Where is the Problem?
>
> The problem is that I don't want to have to play
> hover-mouse just to see
> a name. That's like needing to lift someone's hat to
> see their face.
>
> I wish people applied a little consideration in
> these matters. The
> nickname feature was fine till some people abused
> it.
> The simplest way to prevent this is to apply a
> little community pressure
> (a la Meatball soft security). when you see:
>
> [[Login|confusing nick]]
> change it to
> [[Login]]

So...you suggest that I change

[[Anth?re|Anthere]]
by
[[Anth?re|Anth?re]]

and the issue would be solved ?

Well...

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [WikiEN-l] vandalism

body:
> We're having a fairly persistent vandal right now.

> Since I'm not a developer, it's fairly easy for me to
> make suggestions.  :-)  I know it's a joke among
> programmers--"this will be simple," etc.  Anyway,
> here's my idea: would it be possible to change the
> function of a ban so that it prevented a banned IP
> from changing a login or, if not logged in, prevented
> that IP from logging in?  Is that something we would
> want to do, or not?

Hi,

blocked IP addresses won't be able to make edits, period. The problem is
that I can't nail the vandal's IP without shell access to the server, so I
can only block him by name. IP addresses are stored in Apache's access log
only. Brion has access, once he's online, I'm sure he'll be able to help
us out.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Getting rid of nicknames

body:
(since my test worked I'm sending this again)

The Cunctator wrote:

>I'd say that people have been seriously abusing the nickname function.
>People really should not have nicknames that are significantly different
>from their usernames.
>
>People should not use nicknames that closely resemble other people's
>usernames.
>
>People should not use unpronounceable nicknames.
>
>People should not use nicknames that are made up of non-alphabetical
>characters.
>
>
>
Yup.
In itself, the nickname function is fine. Lee can sign "LDC", Mav "Mav".
Like many things, if it's used *responsibly* there isn't a problem.

Three options:
1. remove the function (ie, exercise "dev power" and remove it for all
the well-behaved people)
2. allow sysops / devs to edit the nicknames of users who are abusing
(sysop power)
3. suggest that *anyone* feel free to edit an instance of a  signature
that obscures the real user name, just by editing the wiki text. (people
power)

I'd say go with 3.

>
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Including parametrized snipplets

body:
Axel Boldt wrote:

>--- Jens Frank <JeLuF at gmx.de> wrote:
>
>
>
>>There would be another namespace
>>for HTML-Snipplets. Those snipplets can contain variables, e.g.
>>enclosed by %%. A snipplet might be a piece of code to include an
>>image with a label, it might be a table, or a boilerplate text.
>>
>>
>>The snipplet
>>ImageFloatingRight
>>might perhaps look like this:
>>
>>

>>[[Image:%%Image%%]]

>>
>>''%%Label%%''
>>
>>

Yuck. Please can we use CSS for this sort of thing?

The best HTML output would be:

caption

float the div, center the P within it and apply character formatting
such as bold italic:

div.imagefloatright { float:right /* maybe put it on a grey background
or a border */ }
div.imagefloatright p { /* nice character formatting */ }


subject: [WikiEN-l] Votes for deletion

body:
I twice deleted a newbie's article called [[First Bull
Run]].  The first time, it was deleted because it was
a copright violation.  The second time, because its
entire content consisted of nothing but a link to the
page that the copyright violation had come from.  I
indicated both times that the title was wrong, it
should be [[Battle of First Bull Run]].  The third
time, the user actually created a useful article,
although still with the wrong name, which Danny
redirected to a correct article name.

Some anonymous person who is using the URL
172.158.95.251, and whose use history contains only
attacks against me, is arguing that I should have
submitted those pages to the Votes for deletion page
before deleting them.  And The Cunctator is backing
him up.

I find this a ridiculous stance.  Are we required to
put EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE on the votes for deletion
page, and then wait a week and for some other use to
delete them?  The Wikipedia:Policy on permanent
deletion of pages page CLEARLY says "If the page
contains no useful content (all gibberish for example)
and no useful history, this step may be skipped."

Are we really going to have to list every article on
Votes for deletion?  That is completely unwieldy.

Zoe

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Getting rid of nicknames

body:
Axel-
> Well, it clearly has been abused, though not in the way you suggest: I
> don't think people have used it to deliberately obscure attributions
> (except maybe in the recent case on the French Wikipedia). People have
> changed nicks around and have used nicks with non-printable characters
> however.

I agree with you on this. However, I fail to see how we can reach
consensus here, since there are obviously quite a few people who enjoy
using the feature, and in all fairness, they would have to be asked
individually if they agree to it being disabled. Since you are
categorically opposed to voting, I note with a wry smile that a decision
in your favor will probably not be forthcoming ;). Of course you could
still try to get Jimbo to declare a state of nickname emergency.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Karl Eichwalder

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Getting rid of nicknames

in_reply_to:
<8m0j9GLxpVB@erik_moeller> (Erik Moeller's message of "17 May
 2003 20:02:00 +0200")

body:
erik_moeller at gmx.de (Erik Moeller) writes:

> I agree with you on this. However, I fail to see how we can reach
> consensus here, since there are obviously quite a few people who enjoy
> using the feature, and in all fairness, they would have to be asked
> individually if they agree to it being disabled.

Maybe, it's enough to disable this feature for new users and add a
(polite) note to the configuration option asking users to stay away
from it.

--
                                                         |      ,__o
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/                            |    _-\_<,
ke at suse.de (work) / keichwa at gmx.net (home)               |   (*)/'(*)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Votes for deletion

body:
If this is to be the standard policy, and the 1 week
limit is maintained on the Votes for Deletion page,
and I am not allowed to delete any pages that I put on
the Votes for deletion page, then I see no point in
even attempting to delete any pages.  This is
completely unworkable.

Oh, and by the way, The Cunctator has unilaterally,
without discussion, deleted "If the page contains no
useful content (all gibberish for example) and no
useful history, this step may be skipped." from the
[[Wikipedia:Policy on permanent deletion of pages]]
page.

Zoe

--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> Zoe-
> > I find this a ridiculous stance.  Are we required
> to
> > put EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE on the votes for deletion
> > page, and then wait a week and for some other use
> to
> > delete them?
>
> No. However, in case of copyright infringements, we
> try to follow the
> policy of putting a boilerplate text on the page
> first:
>
>
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ABoilerplate_text
> (search for "copyright infringement")
>
> In these cases, the page should also be added to
> VfD. This is done so that
> the user gets an opportunity to clarify whether this
> was really done
> without permission, or whether the text is actually
> his. If a user has a
> history of such violations and has made no effort to
> resolve them, this
> step may be considered unnecessary.
>
> It's a bit tedious (I suggest bookmarking the
> boilerplate page), but there
> have been plenty of cases where anonymous users have
> added stuff from
> their own homepages, so I think it's still a useful
> procedure to follow.
> Also, the above text is fairly courteous and
> non-confrontational.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


from_name: Tony Wilson

subject: [WikiEN-l] A comprehensive list of urgent software modifications

body:
OK, I have to admit that my suggestion of adding: IF {USERNAME <>
"Lir"} THEN {SET STATUS = "admin"} didn't work. But how about we set
the software gurus to implementing the following improvements?

IF {Page_Content = "politics" OR "freedom of speech"} THEN SET
Database_Server =  "California"

IF {Page_Content = "nudity"} THEN SET Database_Server =  "France"

IF {Page_Content = "uploaded picture" AND Copyright_Expiry_Date > 1900}
 THEN SET Database_Server =  "Australia"

IF {EDIT_TOPIC="Macedonia"} AND {USER =  "anon IP address"} THEN {SET
PAGE = READ-ONLY}

IF {USER =  "anon IP address"} AND {HOST DOMAIN = "AOL"} THEN {SET USER
STATUS = "blocked"}

IF {TO = "wikien-l at wikipedia.org"} AND {TEXT = "you idiot" OR "you
fool" OR "can't you understand?"} THEN {CREATE NEW EMAIL: SUBJECT = "I
am sorry"}

IF {USER = "Tannin"} AND {TIME => 3:00AM} THEN {REDIRECT CONTENT: "dev:
null"}

Tony Wilson
(Tannin)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Getting rid of nicknames

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> tarquin wrote:
>> Three options:
>> 1. remove the function (ie, exercise "dev power" and remove it for all
>> the well-behaved people)
>> 2. allow sysops / devs to edit the nicknames of users who are abusing
>> (sysop power)
>> 3. suggest that *anyone* feel free to edit an instance of a  signature
>> that obscures the real user name, just by editing the wiki text. (people
>> power)
>>
>> I'd say go with 3.
> I support 2.
> 3 is in fact the status quo, but it contains a lot of potential for abuse.

Sorry, but as I see it, nicknames are coded as [[Login|Nick]] if you use
the sign functinality (~~~~). And e.g. Mozilla shows ''Login'' in this
yellow floating popup. Where is the Problem?

If you don't sign properly, and write --FooBar that can't be prohibited.
And ''official pages'' (SpecialPages etc.) should never use the nickname
during display (exept Properties ;).

I personally don't need this feature, and I think it can be very confusing
sometimes, but nothing of 1, 2, or 3 is needed, IMHO. If someone uses
offending words (as nickname) thats another matter, and can solved in
better ways.

As long as the Wikipedia shows the real names (during diffs etc.), it's
very very annoying to look after some stupid nicks. And discussions if Foo
can mixed up with Fo? .. sorry, but someone who _can_ read is clearly in
advance.

my 2 cents (EUR)
--
Smurf

smurf at AdamAnt.mud.de
-------------------------  Anthill inside! ---------------------------


from_name: Tomos at Wikipedia

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Two issues here:

body:
Thank you for those who offered me opinions and insights on this matter.

Ray suggested that it is perfectly legal not to act unless my country
imposes an obligation to act. In my understanding (which I admit is not very
deep nor solid), there is such an obligation. There are some cases
(defamation the most famous, but also others such as harm to a business) in
which admins were found to be liable.

An admin for Japanese wikipedia can be held liable, under japanese legal
system, basically when

1) the content harms japanese (wikipedian, reader, or others such as a
company),
2) I am aware of the content's illegality under japanese law, and
3) I do not delete the content despite that I have the ability (admin
privilage) to do so.

This part is just like in the U.S., I think.

Potential issues here include invasion of privacy, defamation, obscenity,
and copyright violation. But not very sure.

Ray also suggested you can revert the deletion, and therefore there is no
point of deleting or not deleting. But unless you are also an admin in
Japanese wikipedia, I guess you cannot revert it.

Mav suggested that after the act of submission is made, only illegality that
matters is that of U.S./California law. I think otherwise, (i.e. legality of
admins action/inaction also matters) but that aside, if mav is right, then
some questions arises -- do Japanese admins should learn US/California laws
in order to perform their legal obligations and protect themselves?

Another question is if things like social reputation and privacy of a
japanese citizen is protected under any U.S. law. If not, the implications
include that Japanese admins should refuse to remove a content which violate
privacy of a japanese citizen, written in Japanese, even when the victim
asks to do so. As you can imagine, that this is against some peoples'
ethical standards.

regards,

Tomos

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: photography and POV

body:
On Sat, 2003-05-17 at 19:43, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
>
> --- Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
> > Well, ask anyone, & you'll most likely be told, ``I
> > have a perfectly
> > NPOV. It's the rest of you who are biassed & don't
> > know all of the important
> > facts." ;-)
> >
> > Geoff
>
> Sorry that this is kinda off, but is should NPOV be
> treated gramatically as a noun, or a adj-noun phrase?
> I just like to write grammatically, and that your post
> sounded weird. I always assumed NPOV should be treated
> as a noun.
>
He did use it as a noun. The reason it looked weird is because most of
the people who use "NPOV" in their writing use it as argot for an
ill-defined and amorphous collection of ideas, intentions, and results.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Getting rid of nicknames

body:
Thomas Corell wrote:

> Sorry, but as I see it, nicknames are coded as [[Login|Nick]] if you
> use the sign functinality (~~~~). And e.g. Mozilla shows ''Login'' in
> this yellow floating popup. Where is the Problem?

The problem is that I don't want to have to play hover-mouse just to see
a name. That's like needing to lift someone's hat to see their face.

I wish people applied a little consideration in these matters. The
nickname feature was fine till some people abused it.
The simplest way to prevent this is to apply a little community pressure
(a la Meatball soft security). when you see:

[[Login|confusing nick]]
change it to
[[Login]]


from_name: Brion Vibber

body:
On Saturday 17 May 2003 13:09, Geoffrey Thomas wrote:
> I propose a new domain, set up like an international
> Wikipedia, uncensored.wikipedia.org, to contain all
> questionable material - pages France doesn't like,
> pages China doesn't like, pages filtering software
> doesn't like, etc.

Absolutely not, never, no way, no how. If you'd like to set up your own
Censorpedia.org which includes all completely-non-"offensive" content from
Wikipedia, be our guest. I don't think you'll have more than about 50 pages,
though. :)

Seriously, if your school's anti-knowledge policy is that draconian, they
probably would be horrified at the very *idea* of Wikipedia and would block
it as dangerous -- since anyone can edit it, clearly there will be sexual
predators trying to find children. :P

Complain to the school board about their illegal prior restraint censorship.
Find some respectable adults who actually care about education (not just
keeping kids intellectually isolated and "safe" until they turn 18) and
convince them to run for school board next election.

See also http://www.peacefire.org/

> On a side note, do we actually need to upload pictures
> to every Wikipedia, or can we save disk space by,

Disk space is not the issue so much, just the time & effort factor of
copy-upload-copy-upload-copy-upload. See discussion at
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia and elsewhere.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Votes for deletion

body:
On Sun, 2003-05-18 at 00:06, Erik Moeller wrote:
> Zoe-
> > Oh, and by the way, The Cunctator has unilaterally,
> > without discussion, deleted "If the page contains no
> > useful content (all gibberish for example) and no
> > useful history, this step may be skipped." from the
> > [[Wikipedia:Policy on permanent deletion of pages]]
> > page.
>
> Already reverted by Koyaanis. I consider this a violation of Wikiquette --
> important policies like that should not be unilaterally removed without
> *prior* discussion.

Ah, unilaterally. I'm such the unilateralist. Is there any difference
between "without discussion" and "unilaterally"? If not, both Zoe and
Erik are being redundant simply for rhetorical effect (the implication
being that I have no desire to work with others toward the common good).

I apologize for upsetting Erik and Zoe. I trust that they recognize that
I desire to work with others toward the common good.

Okay; starting an ex post facto prior discussion:

In his edit summary, KQ stated that the issue was previously hashed out
on the mailing list and Decided by Jimmy.

It's essentially impossible to find out what policy edits arise from
what discussion--that is, if the policy was "unilaterally" added
"without discussion" by someone several months before or if it arose out
of a long discussion on the mailing list. If that discussion was
referenced anywhere, then it would be possible for me (or others) to see
where the decision came from.

Finally, while Jimbo is a useful arbiter of policy decisions, it's not
healthy to consider that decisions he makes about editing policy to be
the Word of Wikipedia Written in Stone. He's not all-knowing or perfect,
as I think he would agree.


subject: [Wikitech-l] additional pipe trick suggestion

body:
Je Diman?o 18 Majo 2003 19:25, rednblack at alum.mit.edu skribis:
> Thought this might be a good pipe trick addition, been pining for it
> for a while:
>
> [[Mexic|o]]an => Mexican

There was a feature request like this a while ago, let's see if I can
dig it out of the tracker:

http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=586885&group_id=34373&atid=411195

(If you can't get the URL to work, go to wikipedia.sourceforge.net,
click the 'feature requests' link, and scroll down to the link to
#586885 "Advanced free linking".)

Basically people decided it would just be too confusing; though your
proposal is a bit simpler than what was proposed there. Scroll down to
the bottom of the above-linked page for my comments on similar usage.

The particular syntax you suggest is something I would not recommend, as
it overloads a legitimate, if rarely useful ;) use of the present
markup. That is, "[[Mexic|o]]an" would produce a link that looks like
"oan" and links to "Mexic". Making it do the divide-and-conquer trick
may be potentially problematic.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: photography and POV

body:
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:

>--- Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
>
>>Well, ask anyone, & you'll most likely be told, ``I
>>have a perfectly
>>NPOV. It's the rest of you who are biassed & don't
>>know all of the important
>>facts." ;-)
>>
>>Geoff
>>
>
>Sorry that this is kinda off, but is should NPOV be
>treated gramatically as a noun, or a adj-noun phrase?
>I just like to write grammatically, and that your post
>sounded weird. I always assumed NPOV should be treated
>as a noun.
>
"NPOV" is an abbreviation, so the treatment depends on its components.
 Grammatically the key word is "point", but since "neutral" is an
adjective then the adverb "perfectly" is perfectly correct.

Ec


subject: [Wikipedia-l] larousse.wikipedia.org?

body:
Je Lundo 19 Majo 2003 00:52, Karl Eichwalder skribis:
> www directs me to 'larousse.wikipedia.org' -- larousse is a great
> name, but for an innocent user it looks confusing.  Why can't we
> continue to use 'www' or 'en' as the host name?

Larousse is just the name of the machine, and shouldn't generally be
linked to directly; at some point in the near future it will probably
not serve wiki pages under that name anymore, but just under en. and
www.

It's only been linked to under its own name temporarily so that people
whose DNS servers are way behind can get at the new server. It's been
up for a few days now, I'm not seeing any more English-Wikipedia
connections on the old server, and I've taken the old server's copy of
the wiki offline, so at this point anyone who isn't able to get at the
new server via www.wikipedia.org is in trouble.  :)

If something is redirecting you automatically to the
larousse.wikipedia.org hostname, please tell me exactly what it is so I
can fix it.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Thomas Corell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Error in Database [wikide]

body:
Database errors (archive 16.May) in german wikipedia:

+--------+--------+-------------------+----+
| cur_id | length | cur_title         | ns |
+--------+--------+-------------------+----+
|  18743 |    437 | Francois_Truffaut |  0 |
|  18781 |    785 | Fran?ois_Truffaut |  0 |
+--------+--------+-------------------+----+
+--------+--------+---------------+----+
| cur_id | length | cur_title     | ns |
+--------+--------+---------------+----+
|  19722 |   1651 | Radom_(Stadt) |  0 |
|  19723 |   1525 | Radom_(Stadt) |  0 |
+--------+--------+---------------+----+
+--------+--------+-----------+----+
| cur_id | length | cur_title | ns |
+--------+--------+-----------+----+
|  30503 |   1071 | Drehleier |  0 |
|  30502 |    422 | Drehleier |  0 |
+--------+--------+-----------+----+
+--------+--------+----------------------+----+
| cur_id | length | cur_title            | ns |
+--------+--------+----------------------+----+
|  31086 |      0 | Bremer_Spezialit?ten |  0 |
|  31085 |     84 | Bremer_Spezialit?ten |  0 |
+--------+--------+----------------------+----+
+--------+--------+------------+----+
| cur_id | length | cur_title  | ns |
+--------+--------+------------+----+
|  31318 |    759 | Dobrudscha |  0 |
|  31317 |    711 | Dobrudscha |  0 |
+--------+--------+------------+----+
+--------+--------+---------------+----+
| cur_id | length | cur_title     | ns |
+--------+--------+---------------+----+
|  29061 |    440 | Maori-Sprache |  0 |
|  29060 |    411 | Maori-Sprache |  0 |
+--------+--------+---------------+----+

--
Smurf

smurf at AdamAnt.mud.de
-------------------------  Anthill inside! ---------------------------


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unilateralism

body:
On Sun, 2003-05-18 at 01:34, Erik Moeller wrote:
> Cunc-
> > Ah, unilaterally. I'm such the unilateralist. Is there any difference
> > between "without discussion" and "unilaterally"?
>
> The term "unilaterally" implies that you deliberately ignore previously
> expressed dissent with your point of view. You note that many people call
> you a "unilateralist".

Actually, there's only a select few who call me a unilateralist.

> Apparently you are well aware of the complaints
> regarding your behavior. Still I have noticed no change in it. In this
> instance you proved Zoe "wrong" not by responding with an argument, but by
> simply changing the policy she referred you to. An Orwellian discussion
> tactic: "We've always been at war with Eurasia."

By "wrong" you mean "right", right? Too many layers of irony. Though
I'll dispute that what I did makes me a unilateralist, I won't dispute
that it was a the wrong thing to do.

> > I apologize for upsetting Erik and Zoe.
>
> Don't forget KQ, who reverted your change before I could.

KQ made no indication that he was upset.

> > I trust that they recognize that
> > I desire to work with others toward the common good.
>
> Many of your actions seem to be provocative for no discernable reason.

I try to explain my actions. if you can't discern the reason for them,
feel free to ask. Or, if you prefer, attack them and me; I'll generally
respond with an explanation if someone says that I'm an idiot trying to
destroy Wikipedia. But asking nicely also works. Whatever you prefer; de
gustibus non est disputandum.

> > It's essentially impossible to find out what policy edits arise from
> > what discussion--that is, if the policy was "unilaterally" added
> > "without discussion" by someone several months before or if it arose out
> > of a long discussion on the mailing list. If that discussion was
> > referenced anywhere, then it would be possible for me (or others) to see
> > where the decision came from.
>
> I agree. The history of the policies is sometimes difficult to trace. It
> still surprises me that you would question this particular policy, since
> it has been practiced with your knowledge at least since around August
> 2002, when we switched to Phase III. All deletions are visible in the
> deletion log, and many of them contain the junk content as a reason,
> without them being listed on the VfD page. If a practice is in de facto
> use, this is all the more a reason not to change the respective policy
> without previous discussion.

Though it's evidently a surprise to you, I don't assiduously check the
deletion log against the VfD page.

The reason I had written "ex post facto prior discussion" was that I was
attempting to move past the issue of my actions, and discuss the issue
of the policy. Sound reasonable?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Votes for deletion

body:
On Sunday 18 May 2003 01:58, sannse wrote:
> Let's bring the conversation back to the essentials :)
>
> I think the current policy on deletions works well and doesn't need
> changing.  We have far too many nonsense pages to list them all for a week,
> we should continue deleting them quickly (by nonsense I mean the
> "jahgkjhkjgh" and random sentence pages).

There's really no need to list things like that, but in general a more open,
inspectable, reversible deletion process would be better. For instance, if
the deletion log is improved and connected to the undeletion system, and if
any user can view deleted pages or undo the deletion during X time period.

This will save on grumbling by making it easier to find and restore things,
while not adding the huge burden of a manually run list/wait/remove system.

For comparison with some other wikis: on the original WikiWiki at c2.com,
anyone can mark a page for deletion by replacing its text with a link to
"DeleteTestAndWelcome" or another such page beginning with "Delete" which
describes why the page is being deleted. To make the deletion permanent, any
other user can edit the page and resave it, which erases the stored backup
revision. To instead cancel the deletion, any user can edit it, call up the
backup copy, and save it. Actual intervention from Ward would be very rare.

MeatBallWiki has a somewhat similar system, but being UseMod-based it has
KeptPages (like our page history, but the older revisions are culled after
some time) and so greater ability to revert. Permanent deletions are made
automatically after some period of time without being edited if left in the
'DeletedPage' state.

What we basically have to ask ourselves is: what is the benefit of instantly
deleting pages with no ability for all but a select few to see and judge what
was deleted and restore it if appropriate? The most worrisome cases of
delete-worthy pages we have are probably the suspected copyright violations,
since their presence in Wikipedia and distribution from our web site and in
our backup dumps has potential legal implications. Yet, we've apparently
decided as a community to *not* delete such pages immediately.

So what benefit is there to having the ability? It's a temptation to use it
where it might not be appropriate; oversight is limited; and most
significantly it promotes ill-will among those who aren't in the club. That's
un-Wiki.

Very occasionally it is useful to delete some junk page immediately to fix up
certain renaming operations, or to delete and immediately restore a page to
recombine broken page histories. These are very rare administrative actions,
which could probably be worked into a better interface which is more specific
to the task.

The general case does _not_ require instant deletions, and would be better
served by an open, reviewable, reversible process that does go ahead and take
automatic action after a timeout with no objections.

More comments and constructive suggestions are welcome at:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletion_management_redesign

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

WikiKarma:
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/wikipedia/phase3/includes/Article.php


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: vandalism

body:
> Erik writes:
>> blocked IP addresses won't be able to make edits,
>> period. The problem is that I can't nail the
>> vandal's IP without shell access to the server,

> What about if the login page came up 404 if you're
> asking for it from a banned IP? ... probably one of
> those "simple" solutions that really isn't.

I think we're still talking past each other. Banned IP addresses can
login, but they cannot edit, even if they're logged in. The IP address of
the user in question (Stick) is not banned.

Regards,

Erik


body:
LittleDan-
> If we made that new domain name, most of wikipedia
> would have to be transfered onto it. It would be
> pointless. Every country says that we can't do this or
> that, and soon Wikipedia is all in the uncensored
> domain. The only thing that might work is putting
> pictures potentially viewed as 'pornography' or just
> 'inapropriate' in general be put in the uncensored
> domain. Once again, that would be a POV decision, but
> I think we need to narrow it down to one specific
> category. Instead of having the link to the picture
> like there is now, it could just be added or removed
> automatically based on your prefrences. In the
> preferences box, you could have:
> [ ] Censor inapropriate content

No, no, no. There are two very good generic solutions that can be used to
tackle the problem of Wikipedia being filtered in specific locations due
to "inappropriate" content:

- Categorization: A general category scheme, whereby I can add
[[Category:ExplicitContent]], but also any other category, and possibly
filter articles in certain categories.
- Article certification teams that certify articles according to different
criteria (for factual accuracy in various areas, style, topical selection
etc.), one of which certifies content that is allowed/prohibited in US
schools. Uncertified articles could be filtered out.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Getting rid of nicknames

body:
Axel-
> Nobody has to be asked individually about anything. If you don't speak
> up in a debate, your opinion doesn't count.

Isn't it interesting that when there is a vote, people always try to get
everyone's attention by putting a notice on talk pages, the Village Pump,
mailing lists etc. (cf. the recent "years in titles" vote) -- and when
there's a "consensus" discussion they always try to avoid drawing too much
attention to it, knowing intuitively that the more people there are
participating, the less likely the discussion will ever get anywhere?

There are people who deliberately use the nickname feature to display
their name in the charset of their mother tongue, or for a number of
personal reasons. These people obviously like the feature, and most of
them are probably not on this list. Hiding this discussion from them and
then suddenly disabling or changing the feature is exactly the kind of
undemocratic back room decision that alienates users in communities. I for
one intend to make users who change their nicknames aware of this
discussion.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unilateralism

body:
On 5/18/03 2:36 AM, "Erik Moeller" <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:

> Cunc-
>
>> Though it's evidently a surprise to you, I don't assiduously check the
>> deletion log against the VfD page.
>
> Neither do I. You check RC. You check VfD. It's quite obvious from looking
> at these semi-regularly that hundreds of pages are deleted without being
> listed on VfD.

Actually, I rarely check RC.

>> The reason I had written "ex post facto prior discussion" was that I was
>> attempting to move past the issue of my actions, and discuss the issue
>> of the policy. Sound reasonable?
>
> Just try to be a little less "unilateral", and we shall all get along
> nicely. I think your problem is that you always assume you alone have to
> protect Wikipedia from going down a spiral of abuse -- trust me, a lot of
> people care about this kind of abuse not happening. Try working with them.

In reply to your thoughts: I don't, I know, and I do. Trust me.

By the way, it's slightly difficult for me to work with people when they
impugn my actions and intentions.


from_name: Cafemusique - Scott Rollins

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: photography and POV

body:
On Sat, 17 May 2003, Daniel Mayer wrote:

> It depends on the context.
>
> Our policy called "NPOV" is a noun but that term is also used as an adjective
> ("This article is NPOV" ; tc hates this usage) or a verb ("I'll try to NPOV
> the article").

I think what threw the previous poster off was the phrase "perfectly
NPOV," which is actually grammatically correct, as may be more clearly
seen if the acronym is replaced: "perfectly neutral point of view."
*Perfectly* is an adverb modifying the adjective *neutral*.

At least that's my impression.

Cafemusique


subject: [WikiEN-l] Votes for deletion

body:
Zoe-
> I find this a ridiculous stance.  Are we required to
> put EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE on the votes for deletion
> page, and then wait a week and for some other use to
> delete them?

No. However, in case of copyright infringements, we try to follow the
policy of putting a boilerplate text on the page first:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ABoilerplate_text
(search for "copyright infringement")

In these cases, the page should also be added to VfD. This is done so that
the user gets an opportunity to clarify whether this was really done
without permission, or whether the text is actually his. If a user has a
history of such violations and has made no effort to resolve them, this
step may be considered unnecessary.

It's a bit tedious (I suggest bookmarking the boilerplate page), but there
have been plenty of cases where anonymous users have added stuff from
their own homepages, so I think it's still a useful procedure to follow.
Also, the above text is fairly courteous and non-confrontational.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [Wikipedia-l] The Function of Wikipedia

body:
The "Web is a tool that enables people who have a life to benefit from the
efforts of those who don't."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/18/weekinreview/18NUNB.html?th


subject: [WikiEN-l] Votes for deletion

body:
Zoe-
> If this is to be the standard policy, and the 1 week
> limit is maintained on the Votes for Deletion page,
> and I am not allowed to delete any pages that I put on
> the Votes for deletion page, then I see no point in
> even attempting to delete any pages.  This is
> completely unworkable.

I disagree. Copyright violations are the exception, junk pages are the
rule. The latter can be deleted without delay. But we need to avoid
copyright paranoia and give every user the benefit of the doubt. Not
everyone realizes that it is necessary for them to give us permissions
before we can use their material. Furthermore, users who copy material
from elsewhere often become good contributors over time -- treating them
with courtesy is a good approach. Honestly: Have you been aware of all the
finer points of copyright before joining Wikipedia? Most people aren't. Be
a little forgiving.

> Oh, and by the way, The Cunctator has unilaterally,
> without discussion, deleted "If the page contains no
> useful content (all gibberish for example) and no
> useful history, this step may be skipped." from the
> [[Wikipedia:Policy on permanent deletion of pages]]
> page.

Already reverted by Koyaanis. I consider this a violation of Wikiquette --
important policies like that should not be unilaterally removed without
*prior* discussion.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Votes for deletion

body:
--- Zoe <zoecomnena at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I twice deleted a newbie's article called [[First
> Bull
> Run]].  The first time, it was deleted because it
> was
> a copright violation.  The second time, because its
> entire content consisted of nothing but a link to
> the
> page that the copyright violation had come from.  I
> indicated both times that the title was wrong, it
> should be [[Battle of First Bull Run]].  The third
> time, the user actually created a useful article,
> although still with the wrong name, which Danny
> redirected to a correct article name.
>
> Some anonymous person who is using the URL
> 172.158.95.251, and whose use history contains only
> attacks against me, is arguing that I should have
> submitted those pages to the Votes for deletion page
> before deleting them.  And The Cunctator is backing
> him up.
>
> I find this a ridiculous stance.  Are we required to
> put EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE on the votes for deletion
> page, and then wait a week and for some other use to
> delete them?  The Wikipedia:Policy on permanent
> deletion of pages page CLEARLY says "If the page
> contains no useful content (all gibberish for
> example)
> and no useful history, this step may be skipped."
>
> Are we really going to have to list every article on
> Votes for deletion?  That is completely unwieldy.
>
> Zoe

I have a memory that a long time ago, Quercus posted
something which came from his site. He was politely
said that this could be a cp infrigement, and asked if
he was the author of it, and if the content was free.

Another reaction could have been to immediately delete
the content since it clearly came from another web
site.

I think the first move was more polite and let room
for explanation.

This said, as I already stated, this page "vote for
deletion" is as heavy as a french administration.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Getting rid of nicknames

body:
--- tarquin <tarquin at planetunreal.com> wrote:
>
>
> Anthere wrote:
>
> >
> >So...you suggest that I change
> >
> >[[Anth?re|Anthere]]
> >by
> >[[Anth?re|Anth?re]]
> >
> >and the issue would be solved ?
> >
> >
> >
> No, that is a different issue. I was talking about
> *nicknames*, not
> *usernames*
>
> I propose you change
> [[Machinchose|Anthere]]
> to
> [[Machinchose]] qui me fait chier en faisant
> semblant d'etre moi

Sans le chier, ?a me va :-)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Votes for deletion

body:
Cunc-
> Ah, unilaterally. I'm such the unilateralist. Is there any difference
> between "without discussion" and "unilaterally"?

The term "unilaterally" implies that you deliberately ignore previously
expressed dissent with your point of view. You note that many people call
you an "unilateralist". Apparently you are well aware of the complaints
regarding your behavior. Still I have noticed no change in it. In this
instance you proved Zoe "wrong" not by responding with an argument, but by
simply changing the policy she referred you to. An Orwellian discussion
tactic: "We've always been at war with Eurasia."

> I apologize for upsetting Erik and Zoe.

Don't forget KQ, who reverted your change before I could.

> I trust that they recognize that
> I desire to work with others toward the common good.

Many of your actions seem to be provocative for no discernable reason.

> It's essentially impossible to find out what policy edits arise from
> what discussion--that is, if the policy was "unilaterally" added
> "without discussion" by someone several months before or if it arose out
> of a long discussion on the mailing list. If that discussion was
> referenced anywhere, then it would be possible for me (or others) to see
> where the decision came from.

I agree. The history of the policies is sometimes difficult to trace. It
still surprises me that you would question this particular policy, since
it has been practiced with your knowledge at least since around August
2002, when we switched to Phase III. All deletions are visible in the
deletion log, and many of them contain the junk content as a reason,
without them being listed on the VfD page. If a practice is in de facto
use, this is all the more a reason not to change the respective policy
without previous discussion.

> Finally, while Jimbo is a useful arbiter of policy decisions, it's not
> healthy to consider that decisions he makes about editing policy to be
> the Word of Wikipedia Written in Stone. He's not all-knowing or perfect,
> as I think he would agree.

If Jimbo explicitly approves a certain policy, this policy should only be
changed after a discussion, including his approval for a change. He is the
"benevolent dictator" of Wikipedia. If we reached decisions by consensus,
we wouldn't do so.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: vandalism

body:
Erik writes:
>I think we're still talking past each other.
> Banned IP addresses can login, but they
> cannot edit, even if they're logged in. The
> IP address of the user in question (Stick)
> is not banned.

Yes.  We're talking past each other.  What I'm saying
is that a banned IP that tries to access the "login"
page, regardless of whether it's logged in already,
could be served a 404.  This could prevent people like
Michael or yesterday's vandal from coming back with
several different usernames.  Again, I'm not sure if
this is a good or bad idea--there may be other, bad
results as well.

kq

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: votes for deletion

body:
zoe writes:
>I twice deleted a newbie's article called
> [[First Bull Run]].  The first time, it
> was deleted because it was a copright
> violation.

Yes, that's all well and good, but sometimes apparent
copyright violations are actually not violations at
all.  That happened today with a Czech Republic
article--someone at another site had claimed copyright
on writeups from the U.S. State Department, which are
in the public domain.  The text was removed, listed
for deletion, and restored.  I thought you noticed
when that happened.  :-)

Again, let me stress: I'm as concerned about copyright
violations as anyone else, if not moreso: personally,
I have misgivings about all the "fair use" photographs
and would prefer not to have them.  But we must give
people time to explain themselves when they upload
apparently "copyrighted" material.  In some cases, the
copyright is theirs.  In others, they're claiming
copyright on something that's in the public domain.
And then, in yet other cases, it's a violation that
needs to be taken down or rewritten completely.

kq

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Votes for deletion

body:
--- tarquin <tarquin at planetunreal.com> wrote:
>
>
> sannse wrote:
>
> >p.s.  this list has been getting *busy* - how about
> reintroducing WikiKarma?
> >
> >
> What's the wikikarma to wikilove conversion rate?
> and what's that in wikidollars?
>
> karma: plenty of minor edits this morning

Wikidollars ??? Are you not living in England ?

Wikikarma : avoiding to have half of the french
wikipedia articles moved the meta space as it is going
to happen *very* soon if the french little fat budda
insist of excluding so-said non-neutral articles from
the article space.

Incidentely, I invite any wikipedians feeling a
deletion as been done outside of the due process, to
register it on

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Getting rid of nicknames

body:
Anthere wrote:
> So...you suggest that I change
> [[Anth?re|Anthere]]
> by
> [[Anth?re|Anth?re]]
> and the issue would be solved ?
> Well...

Changing signatures is not the 'wikiwiki'-way, as far as I understood it. I
think that, especially french useres, can distinguish between two words
with different accents.

That using such a similar nickname to blame another one is not gentle, is
the other side. But you can't blame this feature, which can be helpful for
one or the other reason. You can only blame the user for his unprofessional
comments or articles etc.

--
Smurf

smurf at AdamAnt.mud.de
-------------------------  Anthill inside! ---------------------------


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: votes for deletion

body:
--- koyaanis qatsi <obchodnakorze at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yes, that's all well and good, but sometimes
> apparent
> copyright violations are actually not violations at
> all.  That happened today with a Czech Republic
> article--someone at another site had claimed
> copyright
> on writeups from the U.S. State Department, which
> are
> in the public domain.  The text was removed, listed
> for deletion, and restored.  I thought you noticed
> when that happened.  :-)
>
> Again, let me stress: I'm as concerned about
> copyright
> violations as anyone else, if not moreso:
> personally,
> I have misgivings about all the "fair use"
> photographs
> and would prefer not to have them.  But we must give
> people time to explain themselves when they upload
> apparently "copyrighted" material.  In some cases,
> the
> copyright is theirs.  In others, they're claiming
> copyright on something that's in the public domain.
> And then, in yet other cases, it's a violation that
> needs to be taken down or rewritten completely.
>
> kq

==What Wikipedia is not==

14. Mere collections of public domain or other source
material; such as entire books, original historical
documents, letters, laws, proclamations and other
source material that are only useful when presented
with their original, un-modified wording.

from [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]]

We shouldn't copy content from public domain sources,
only the information from them.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unilateralism

body:
Cunc-

> Though it's evidently a surprise to you, I don't assiduously check the
> deletion log against the VfD page.

Neither do I. You check RC. You check VfD. It's quite obvious from looking
at these semi-regularly that hundreds of pages are deleted without being
listed on VfD.

> The reason I had written "ex post facto prior discussion" was that I was
> attempting to move past the issue of my actions, and discuss the issue
> of the policy. Sound reasonable?

Just try to be a little less "unilateral", and we shall all get along
nicely. I think your problem is that you always assume you alone have to
protect Wikipedia from going down a spiral of abuse -- trust me, a lot of
people care about this kind of abuse not happening. Try working with them.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: tarquin

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Getting rid of nicknames

body:
Anthere wrote:

>
>So...you suggest that I change
>
>[[Anth?re|Anthere]]
>by
>[[Anth?re|Anth?re]]
>
>and the issue would be solved ?
>
>
>
No, that is a different issue. I was talking about *nicknames*, not
*usernames*

I propose you change
[[Machinchose|Anthere]]
to
[[Machinchose]] qui me fait chier en faisant semblant d'etre moi


subject: [WikiEN-l] minimum stub length.

body:
I think we should institute a minimum length for all
new stub pages. There are many pages that are only one
sentence, but I don't know enough about the topic to
add more information. (the one I came across was
[[GDM]]). I think we should make a rule that all stubs
should be at least three sentences long. That way, we
won't have as many really short stubs around. We could
build this into the software that there must be three
periods (at least) in every entry. To go further, if
we really wanted to, we could say that if an entry has
no periods (a vandal probably made it) then instead of
giving an error message, it would just show the page
(once) as if it would look if it were saved but really
not save it. Most vandals (not trolls) just write one
simple phrase of babble on a non-existant page once,
and it is soon deleted, but we could automate this.
--LittleDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Database download

body:
When I tried to download the Database dump, it was in
a .bz2 file, but I can't install bzip on my windoze
computer (in order to work on an offline Wikipedia
viewer). Could there be some .tar.gz or .zip database
dump?
--LittleDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Votes for deletion

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>All deletions are visible in the
>deletion log, and many of them contain the junk content as a reason,
>without them being listed on the VfD page. If a practice is in de facto
>use, this is all the more a reason not to change the respective policy
>without previous discussion.
>
>
>
I do this all the time. Page created with "hello" or "you stink" or
"hjkdhfgkjdfgh" - I delete right away with the summary "junk".
I looked through the VfD history to find the line Cunc removed (to
restore it) but I can't see it.


subject: [WikiEN-l] censorship

body:
I wrote:
> [ ] Censor inapropriate content

But I meant
> [ ] Censor obscene content
or
> [ ] Censor content that may be considered obscene.

As for the category scheme that Eloquence suggested
(but I accidentally deleted the email) I think that
would be a great idea, but it would require too much
work. I've always wanted a category scheme, even a
rough one like in the esperanto wiki, and your
suggestion would work out well. I just think that if
we set our goals too high, we'll never complete them
(though I suppose Wikipedia is in defiance of this).
--LittleDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unilateralism

body:
Cunc-
> By the way, it's slightly difficult for me to work with people when they
> impugn my actions and intentions.

If you would explain them better, we would have to "impugn" them less.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] minimum stub length.

body:
--- The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com> wrote:
> On 5/18/03 12:02 PM, "Daniel Ehrenberg"
> <littledanehren at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I think we should institute a minimum length for
> all
> > new stub pages. There are many pages that are only
> one
> > sentence, but I don't know enough about the topic
> to
> > add more information. (the one I came across was
> > [[GDM]]). I think we should make a rule that all
> stubs
> > should be at least three sentences long. That way,
> we
> > won't have as many really short stubs around. We
> could
> > build this into the software that there must be
> three
> > periods (at least) in every entry. To go further,
> if
> > we really wanted to, we could say that if an entry
> has
> > no periods (a vandal probably made it) then
> instead of
> > giving an error message, it would just show the
> page
> > (once) as if it would look if it were saved but
> really
> > not save it. Most vandals (not trolls) just write
> one
> > simple phrase of babble on a non-existant page
> once,
> > and it is soon deleted, but we could automate
> this.
> > --LittleDan
> >
> I disagree. The stub-length preference allows each
> user to define what they
> consider a "minimum" stub. I, for one, believe that
> a one-sentence stub is
> better than no information at all. You disagree; the
> current system offers a
> non-destructive way of making both of us somewhat
> happy. A classic
> compromise.

How about this: The convention is that a stub *should*
have at least 3 sentences, but if that is impossible,
then one or two will have to do, but there would be no
software changes
--LittleDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


from_name: sannse

subject: [WikiEN-l] Votes for deletion

body:
Let's bring the conversation back to the essentials :)

I think the current policy on deletions works well and doesn't need
changing.  We have far too many nonsense pages to list them all for a week,
we should continue deleting them quickly (by nonsense I mean the
"jahgkjhkjgh" and random sentence pages).  And I agree copyright issues
should continue to be given a weeks grace, we get some good pages from what
may initially look like a problem.

with WikiLove,

sannse

p.s.  this list has been getting *busy* - how about reintroducing WikiKarma?
:)

WikiKarma:  de-MSing [[Bjork]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Votes for deletion

body:
sannse wrote:

>p.s.  this list has been getting *busy* - how about reintroducing WikiKarma?
>
>
What's the wikikarma to wikilove conversion rate?
and what's that in wikidollars?

karma: plenty of minor edits this morning


from_name: Daniel Ehrenberg

subject: [WikiEN-l] forum instead of mail

body:
I think that we should use a web-based forum instead
of email. Forums are much more organised and don't
clutter your inbox. They also eliminate problems with
different email clients (like the whole "wrap your
text" thing), as well as signing letters. I set up a
free (and ad-free) hosted forum at
wikipedia.proboards19.com to test out swithching to a
forum, but if it suits you better to download forum
software for www.wikipedia.org instead, it's probably
better that way anyway. There could be a link to the
forum from the main page to increase awareness of it
(many people don't know of the mailing list, and there
is no way to link to it.) Some people think this
mailing list is exclusive and only for sysops and the
like.

For the proboards19 forum, the admin is Wikipedia with
password npov, but you should probably make your own
account.
--LittleDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Database download

body:
On Sunday 18 May 2003 09:34, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
> When I tried to download the Database dump, it was in
> a .bz2 file, but I can't install bzip on my windoze
> computer (in order to work on an offline Wikipedia
> viewer).

There's a Windows executable at:
http://sources.redhat.com/bzip2/#bzip2-latest

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: vandalism

body:
On Sunday 18 May 2003 08:04, koyaanis qatsi wrote:
> Erik writes:
> >I think we're still talking past each other.
> > Banned IP addresses can login, but they
> > cannot edit, even if they're logged in. The
> > IP address of the user in question (Stick)
> > is not banned.
>
> Yes.  We're talking past each other.  What I'm saying
> is that a banned IP that tries to access the "login"
> page, regardless of whether it's logged in already,
> could be served a 404.  This could prevent people like
> Michael or yesterday's vandal from coming back with
> several different usernames.  Again, I'm not sure if
> this is a good or bad idea--there may be other, bad
> results as well.

I'm not sure what the benefit of that would be. IP bans affect the IP even if
edits coming from that IP are logged in, so they couldn't edit if they were
coming from a banned IP. If they come back with a different IP, there's
nothing we can do about it anyway with an IP ban.

Are you just suggesting we make "vandals" think that the wiki is "broken" so
they'll go away?

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] minimum stub length.

body:
--- The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com> wrote:
> On 5/18/03 12:52 PM, "Daniel Ehrenberg"
> <littledanehren at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > How about this: The convention is that a stub
> *should*
> > have at least 3 sentences, but if that is
> impossible,
> > then one or two will have to do, but there would
> be no
> > software changes
> > --LittleDan
>
> The convention already is that all entries should be
> as complete as
> possible. It's funny, though, because you're
> essentially resurrecting the
> comma criterion (only entries with a "," would be
> counted as an article when
> doing a count of the number of articles in
> Wikipedia), which I thought was a
> good criterion for the English language.
>
> BTW, do you have the stub-link functionality on?
> It's quite useful.

The stub filter doesn't work for some reason for me.

I don't like the comma rule, because it can be easily
(and inadvertantly) worked around. For example, what
if someone wrote "in Massachusetts, USA." for the
Boston article. Then the rule and subsequently
software would consider it a full article.
--LittleDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] minimum stub length.

body:
On 5/18/03 12:02 PM, "Daniel Ehrenberg" <littledanehren at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I think we should institute a minimum length for all
> new stub pages. There are many pages that are only one
> sentence, but I don't know enough about the topic to
> add more information. (the one I came across was
> [[GDM]]). I think we should make a rule that all stubs
> should be at least three sentences long. That way, we
> won't have as many really short stubs around. We could
> build this into the software that there must be three
> periods (at least) in every entry. To go further, if
> we really wanted to, we could say that if an entry has
> no periods (a vandal probably made it) then instead of
> giving an error message, it would just show the page
> (once) as if it would look if it were saved but really
> not save it. Most vandals (not trolls) just write one
> simple phrase of babble on a non-existant page once,
> and it is soon deleted, but we could automate this.
> --LittleDan
>
I disagree. The stub-length preference allows each user to define what they
consider a "minimum" stub. I, for one, believe that a one-sentence stub is
better than no information at all. You disagree; the current system offers a
non-destructive way of making both of us somewhat happy. A classic
compromise.


subject: [WikiEN-l] censorship

body:
--- Vicki Rosenzweig <vr at redbird.org> wrote:
> At 09:49 AM 5/18/03 -0700, LittleDan wrote:
> >I wrote:
> > > [ ] Censor inapropriate content
> >
> >But I meant
> > > [ ] Censor obscene content
> >or
> > > [ ] Censor content that may be considered
> obscene.
>
> "Content that may be considered obscene" is
> incredibly wide,
> depending on who is doing the considering: diagnosis
> and
> treatment of breast cancer, for example. Two people
> of the same
> gender kissing. A woman nursing a baby. The bare
> human calf
> used to be considered shocking and provocative.
> --
> Vicki Rosenzweig
> vr at redbird.org
> http://www.redbird.org

I hate to say this, but you know what I mean. Stop
exploiting loopholes in my wording. I guess "censor
obscene content" would be more clear.
--LittleDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] forum instead of mail

body:
--- Jens Frank <JeLuF at gmx.de> wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 11:23:50AM -0700, Daniel
> Ehrenberg wrote:
> > I think that we should use a web-based forum
> instead
> > of email. Forums are much more organised and don't
> > clutter your inbox.
>
> If mailing lists clutter your inbox, than use a real
> mail
> program that automaticaly sorts incoming mail to
> folders.
>
> > They also eliminate problems with
> > different email clients (like the whole "wrap your
> > text" thing), as well as signing letters.
>
> But are way behind the features a good mail client
> provides to you. Scoring, filtering, fast access,
> offline readable *and* replyable (good for those
> people not having a flat rate), kill lists (some
> topics just don't interest me, so they are set
> to "read" automaticaly) etc pp.
>
> Not to mention the ads and the two-screens long
> legalese I have to sign prior to logging in.
>
> Best regards,
>
> JeLuF

What ads?

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: votes for deletion

body:
LittleDan writes:
< reminds us of #14, not a place to dump public domain
materials >
>We shouldn't copy content from public domain sources,
>only the information from them.

Are you saying we shouldn't copy in information from
public domain resources, and if so, why are you saying
that?

Copying in public information has been very useful in
building up the country articles--all of them are
based on CIA information, with many of them
supplemented with information from the State
Department.  There is no harm in that.  Similarly,
some but not all of the biographical entries come from
public domain resources.

The problem with public domain sources is not that
they are public domain, but that copyright has far
extended any sort of reasonable limit and has turned
into a system for controlling culture in perpetuity.
In less ideological terms, what that means is that
nearly everything post 1920s is *not* in the public
domain, so the information you can glean from public
domain resources typically predates that and so is
often anachronistic to the point of being useless.
This was the case with the information on [[Algeria]]
from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, which took me
several hours to verify, and even then I got no more
than a few paragraphs from it.  Similarly, this was
the problem with the various instructions someone was
uploading about e.g. how to swim, as well as the
recipes from the 1800s and early 1900s, referring to
ingredients, methods, and measurements that often had
not been in use for decades.  Often the material in
old biographical entries is laden with various
cultural assumptions which are incorrect or downright
embarassing.

Anyway, that is the background behind #14.  It's not
an absolute--or at least it shouldn't be--it's a
warning: know what you're in for, and be prepared to
do a lot of work.

kq

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Two issues here:

body:
Again, IANAL

Tomos wrote:
> Ray suggested that it is perfectly legal not to act unless my country
> imposes an obligation to act. In my understanding (which I admit is not
> very deep nor solid), there is such an obligation. There are some cases
> (defamation the most famous, but also others such as harm to a business) in
> which admins were found to be liable.

You are overestimating and confusing the role of Adminship in Wikipedia;
Admins have /no/ special legal responsibilities to do anything. Admins just
have added capabilities to do certain things that we can't trust random users
to do. So the only real Admin we have in a legal sense is Jimbo Wales - who
unless he travels to Japan is outside of Japanese jurisdiction.

Therefore you are /not/ legally compelled to remove material that is perfectly
legal under US/California law. If a Japanese Admin still feels a need to do
so or just goes ahead and does so, then we can remedy the situation by
temporarily disabling the sysop status of the Admin's user account.

> An admin for Japanese wikipedia can be held liable, under japanese legal
> system, basically when
>
> 1) the content harms japanese (wikipedian, reader, or others such as a
> company),
> 2) I am aware of the content's illegality under japanese law, and
> 3) I do not delete the content despite that I have the ability (admin
> privilage) to do so.

See above. Simply put deleting such material would be a violation of our
policy so a Japanese Admin does not really have the ability to do so to begin
with.

> Mav suggested that after the act of submission is made, only illegality
> that matters is that of U.S./California law. I think otherwise, (i.e.
> legality of admins action/inaction also matters) but that aside, if mav is
> right, then some questions arises -- do Japanese admins should learn
> US/California laws in order to perform their legal obligations and protect
> themselves?

As far I know US law can't touch a Japanese citizen so long as that citizen is
outside of US jurisdiction. But a Japanese citizen does need to follow
US/California copyright law to have their work reside on a server in San
Diego. So this is just a Wikipedia policy on what we allow to be on our
server.

> Another question is if things like social reputation and privacy of a
> japanese citizen is protected under any U.S. law. If not, the implications
> include that Japanese admins should refuse to remove a content which
> violate privacy of a japanese citizen, written in Japanese, even when the
> victim asks to do so. As you can imagine, that this is against some
> peoples' ethical standards.

As long as it is legal under US/California law and is also NPOV and an
encyclopedic topic then the material should stay.

I'm sure Japanese law isn't so draconian that a well-written, NPOV and
encyclopedic article would break Japanese law.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


from_name: koyaanis qatsi

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: vandalism

body:
Brion writes:
> IP bans affect the IP even if edits coming from
> that IP are logged in, so they couldn't edit
> if they were coming from a banned IP. If they
> come back with a different IP, there's nothing
> we can do about it anyway with an IP ban.

Hm, I've misunderstood something then.  How is it The
Stick et al. can keep logging in under different
accounts?

> Are you just suggesting we make "vandals" think
> that the wiki is "broken" so they'll go away?

Yes.

kq

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Two issues here:

body:
Two issues here: wrote:
> To use an example that is sure to make everybody's blood boil: suppose
> you are an admin on an open web site that's located in a country where
> child porn is legal. Someone posts child porn there. Your country's
> police asks you to remove it. You refuse, arguing that your country's
> jurisdiction doesn't apply to the server. I don't really want to be in
> your shoes.
>
> Axel

That only works in a case where there is a legal connection between the
"admin" and the website. In our case, all but one of our "admin's" are just
users. Jimbo would be the only one that could theoretically be compelled to
do anything that would not be immediately restored by another admin in a
nation where the offending material is fine.

Things will get sticky when we have a Wikimedia Foundation though. I imagine
many longtime users from around the world will have legal roles in the
Foundation....

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


subject: [WikiEN-l] minimum stub length.

body:
On 5/18/03 12:52 PM, "Daniel Ehrenberg" <littledanehren at yahoo.com> wrote:
> How about this: The convention is that a stub *should*
> have at least 3 sentences, but if that is impossible,
> then one or two will have to do, but there would be no
> software changes
> --LittleDan

The convention already is that all entries should be as complete as
possible. It's funny, though, because you're essentially resurrecting the
comma criterion (only entries with a "," would be counted as an article when
doing a count of the number of articles in Wikipedia), which I thought was a
good criterion for the English language.

BTW, do you have the stub-link functionality on? It's quite useful.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re:  votes for deletion

body:
kq wrote:
> Yes, that's all well and good, but sometimes apparent
> copyright violations are actually not violations at
> all.  That happened today with a Czech Republic
> article--someone at another site had claimed copyright
> on writeups from the U.S. State Department, which are
> in the public domain.  The text was removed, listed
> for deletion, and restored.  I thought you noticed
> when that happened.  :-)

And that is exactly why we should always give credit where credit is due by
placing a ==References== section in articles that have a good amount of
public domain text in it.

Just because we legally aren't required to credit public domain text doesn't
mean we shouldn't do the academically correct thing and not take credit for
text we did not write. A great side benefit is that others will not suspect a
copyright violation after reading the ==References== section.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


from_name: Vicki Rosenzweig

subject: [WikiEN-l] censorship

body:
At 09:49 AM 5/18/03 -0700, LittleDan wrote:
>I wrote:
> > [ ] Censor inapropriate content
>
>But I meant
> > [ ] Censor obscene content
>or
> > [ ] Censor content that may be considered obscene.

"Content that may be considered obscene" is incredibly wide,
depending on who is doing the considering: diagnosis and
treatment of breast cancer, for example. Two people of the same
gender kissing. A woman nursing a baby. The bare human calf
used to be considered shocking and provocative.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org


from_name: Zoe

subject: [WikiEN-l] censorship

body:
--- Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I hate to say this, but you know what I mean. Stop
> exploiting loopholes in my wording. I guess "censor
> obscene content" would be more clear.
> --LittleDan

But Dan, you still don't tell us how to identify what
is obscene.  As Vicki said, it's in the eye of the
beholder.  Victorians used to cover the legs of pianos
and refer to human extremities as "limbs".

Zoe

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com