subject: [Wikitech-l] Bad status

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>>Salut,
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>There is a probleme. I had get the sysop status on the french wikipedia,
>>that's ok, it was planned.
>>By the same time, I had get the same status on the english one, it was
>>not planned !
>>Ok, I don't use my superpowers on en: but it seems a little strange too me.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>Do someone has a brillant idea ?
>>
>>
>
>Well, I don't know who changed your status on en:, but I've reset it.
>
>Regards,
>
>Erik
>
>
Thanks for your *quick* intervention .
You don't know who changed my status on en: ... there is no historic ?

? bient?t

Alvaro


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikitech-l] Bad status

body:
Alvaro-
> Thanks for your *quick* intervention .
> You don't know who changed my status on en: ... there is no historic ?

Nope, not as far as I know. Sysop status is assigned via direct queries on
the database. Somebody probably picked the wrong DB by accident when
running the query.

Regards,

Erik


list: wikien-l

from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Lir and his clones

body:
LittleDan wrote:
>....
> In all of the other wikis (except for the ones modeled
> after us), there is no "supreme-dictator-for-life" (as
> you put it, perhaps humorsly, in a previous post).
> Most other wikis despise that we have one person
> running the whole thing. I don't think we should keep
> doing your unpopular decisions just because you own
> the servers. When you created Wikipedia, you also gave
> up control of it. We are a community, not governed by
> one person, but by everyone. On many of the About,
> FAQ, and similar pages, you state that Wikipedia is an
> anarchy, but that really is not true. As long as you
> unilaterally make decisions like this, wikipedia will
> never be a true anarchy, always a dictatorship.
> --LittleDan

This is way off base here. Jimbo has been tirelessly caring, compassionate and
fair and has been a true "benevolent dictator" in the spirit of Linus
Torvalds.

His guidance and the resources he has donated has gotten us to where we are.
Not only does he spend a good deal of his time on Wikipedia-related things
but he has also donated many tens of thousands of dollars of his own money
into the project. He didn't have to do that.

And he did this all this without the faintest hint that he expected to get
anything out of Wikipedia other than the satisfaction in knowing that he is
nurturing a project that is creating one of the best free resources on the
Internet. Trying to ensure that human knowledge is made freely available to
everyone; IMO, few things are nobler than that.

That said, I do want to say that any "dictatorial" type of system is
inherently flawed and the results are only as good as the leadership and
mediation skills of the current dictator (which can be anything between
benevolent to malevolent).

The Romans started on the tract of a dictatorial-type system back with
Augustus Caesar. Now Augustus was a great leader - just like Jimbo - but the
system he created totally depended on the strength of charactor of the
Emperor. So when a person with poor leadership skills or morals takes over in
such a system then we have Neros and Caligulas.

But in a free wiki like this it is easier to "split the empire" (sic fork) if
we have bad leadership. This threat should put some limit on how "malevolent"
a dictator can be.

So there are some checks and balances even in the system we have now. Although
this really is the ultimate check so a better system with more checks and
balances is needed.

You are young so I'm assuming your angry outbust is really directed at the
system and not the man.

We /do/ plan on changing the system as part of the process of setting up the
Wikimedia Foundation, BTW, so there is nothing to be angry about.

Save your ideas for when we start to draft Wikimedia's charter.

In the spirit of WikiLove (a Jimbo concept :),

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: alvaro

subject: [Wikipedia-l] dates on fr:

body:
tarquin wrote:

> what's happened to dates on fr: ?
> They all look like:
>
> 21 mai 2003 ?18:21
>
> On the Mac the "?" is a bullet character.
>
> ---------
>
> Bizzare, les dates sur le fr: depuis quelque temps:
> 21 mai 2003 ?18:21
>
> c'est quoi, ce point d'interrogation?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

C'est un caract?re que met ton navigateur (ie ?) pour remplacer un
caract?re qu'il ne sait afficher. Mozilla m'affiche un point "un peu haut".

Alvaro


from_name: Jens Frank

subject: [Wikipedia-l] dates on fr:

body:
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 10:04:13PM +0200, alvaro wrote:
>
>
> tarquin wrote:
>
> >what's happened to dates on fr: ?
> >They all look like:
> >
> >21 mai 2003 ?18:21
> >
> >On the Mac the "?" is a bullet character.
> >
> >---------
> >
> >Bizzare, les dates sur le fr: depuis quelque temps:
> >21 mai 2003 ?18:21
> >
> >c'est quoi, ce point d'interrogation?
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Wikipedia-l mailing list
> >Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> >http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
> C'est un caract?re que met ton navigateur (ie ?) pour remplacer un
> caract?re qu'il ne sait afficher. Mozilla m'affiche un point "un peu haut".
>
The source looks like this:

	21 mai 2003 ・13:59

The &-code is refering to a unicode-character for a mid-dot.

Regards,

	JeLuF


from_name: Erik Zachte

subject: [Wikitech-l] RE: Creating a Plucker version (was: Static html dump)

body:
> If anyone is interested, I have a rudimental Perl script that is
> capable of reading the downloadable SQL dump and output all the
> articles as separate files in a number of alphabetical directories.
> It's not very fast, but it works.
> What's missing from the script: wikimarkup -> HTML conversion,

Mr David A. Wheeler,
Have you seen my Perl script for conversion of the SQL dump to
TomeRaider datase? You might find useful code there.

It renders all pages in html, checks als hyperlinks and unlinks half a
million orphaned ones. It edits wiki code to remove redundant tags,
fixes some badly coded html tables, adds stats and language specific
introduction. Replaces html tags by extended ascii (saves a lot of
space). Resolves redirects, thus making hyperlinks point directly to the
proper article. It removes tables that only contained an image (plus
possibly a single footer text).

In fact I think the script could be extended to generate separate html
pages in a few hours. Plucker specifics not taken into account.

Script: http://members.chello.nl/epzachte/Wikipedia/WikiToTome.pl
More info: http://members.chello.nl/epzachte/Wikipedia

Erik Zachte


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Lir and his clones

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>That said, I do want to say that any "dictatorial" type of system is
>inherently flawed and the results are only as good as the leadership and
>mediation skills of the current dictator (which can be anything between
>benevolent to malevolent).
>
A malevolent dictator would never have had the altruistic followers that
Jimbo has had here.  In such circumstances the 'pedia would have had far
fewer articles over the same time.

>The Romans started on the tract of a dictatorial-type system back with
>Augustus Caesar. Now Augustus was a great leader - just like Jimbo - but the
>system he created totally depended on the strength of charactor of the
>Emperor. So when a person with poor leadership skills or morals takes over in
>such a system then we have Neros and Caligulas.
>
I thought of a Roman emperor comparison when i was composing my previous
response to this, specifically Marcus Aurelius.

>We /do/ plan on changing the system as part of the process of setting up the
>Wikimedia Foundation, BTW, so there is nothing to be angry about.
>
My concern and support about the much bruited foundation has not been
based on the actions of our present dictator, but on insuring long term
continuity that would protect the project and make it self-sustaining
far into the future.

Ec


from_name: Thomas Corell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Modifications in CVS

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> On Wed, 21 May 2003, Thomas Corell wrote:
>
>>Modified Search to display a link to generate a new page if with 'Go' no
>>article is found. You have to modify "nogomatch" like demonstrated in
>>LanguageDe.php to do so. The "showingresultnum" texts are modified, limit
>>is removed now.
>
>
> Sounds fun, I'll take a look at it after work...

And I go sleeping. 4h before next wakeup :)

--
Smurf

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


from_name: Alfio Puglisi

subject:
[Wikitech-l] RE: Creating a Plucker version (was: Static html
 dump)

body:
Hey, it seems that a lot of people is doing the same thing here.
Well, thanks for all the input about the code and the Plucker possibility.
For now I think I'll go on like before (I like my spaghetti code :-)
When I'll have a version working sufficiently well I'll make things
public.

Ciao,
Alfio

On Wed, 21 May 2003, Erik Zachte wrote:

>> If anyone is interested, I have a rudimental Perl script that is
>> capable of reading the downloadable SQL dump and output all the
>> articles as separate files in a number of alphabetical directories.
>> It's not very fast, but it works.
>> What's missing from the script: wikimarkup -> HTML conversion,
>
>Mr David A. Wheeler,
>Have you seen my Perl script for conversion of the SQL dump to
>TomeRaider datase? You might find useful code there.
>
>It renders all pages in html, checks als hyperlinks and unlinks half a
>million orphaned ones. It edits wiki code to remove redundant tags,
>fixes some badly coded html tables, adds stats and language specific
>introduction. Replaces html tags by extended ascii (saves a lot of
>space). Resolves redirects, thus making hyperlinks point directly to the
>proper article. It removes tables that only contained an image (plus
>possibly a single footer text).
>
>In fact I think the script could be extended to generate separate html
>pages in a few hours. Plucker specifics not taken into account.
>
>Script: http://members.chello.nl/epzachte/Wikipedia/WikiToTome.pl
>More info: http://members.chello.nl/epzachte/Wikipedia
>
>Erik Zachte
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at wikipedia.org
>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: tarquin

subject: [Wikipedia-l] dates on fr:

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

>>The &-code is refering to a unicode-character for a mid-dot.
>>
>>
>
>Yes, that's how the file Aoineko sent me had it... If a mid-dot is the
>right thing to use, · might be better for those who don't have
>Japanese fonts installed. :)
>
>
>
I suspect it's just Aoineko being fancy.
Please could we have a plain old comma instead?


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Lir and his clones

body:
On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 01:52, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
> >That said, I do want to say that any "dictatorial" type of system is
> >inherently flawed and the results are only as good as the leadership and
> >mediation skills of the current dictator (which can be anything between
> >benevolent to malevolent).
> >
> A malevolent dictator would never have had the altruistic followers that
> Jimbo has had here.  In such circumstances the 'pedia would have had far
> fewer articles over the same time.
>
Never underestimate the appeal of malevolent dictators. Wikipedia would
still be popular under a malevolent dictator. He'd be deposed, though.

--tc


from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] JohnQ / MaryMary - the clitoris guy

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

>>Imho, better trust us to have imagination and to
>>find
>>ways to turn around things.
>>In France, I would say the toughest is not the law,
>>the toughest are (is ?) the barriers people build
>>themselves thinking of the law.
>>Anthere
>>
>
>I think it's is. The verb should agree with the
>subject, and the subject is singular.
>--LittleDan
>
"Are" is correct. The implicit subject is "barriers" -- plural

Ec

I am relieved to read it was apparently not obvious ;-)

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030522/1fb86ced/attachment.htm


from_name: uwe kils

subject: [WikiEN-l] uwe kils sysop request

body:
--- uwe kils <kils at comcast.net> wrote:

> Dear Wikipedians,
>
> I would like to request to become a sysop member of
> your project
> my user name is
>
> kils
>
> and I work on oceanography subjects and like your
> project a lot
>
> -------------------------
>
> Uwe Kils, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Marine
> Biology
> Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences
> Rutgers University
> 71 Dudley Road
> New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901-8521
> Phone: 732/932-6555 extension 367
> Fax: 732/932-6557
> Email: kils at imcs.rutgers.edu
> http://www.ecoscope.com
>

> > begin:vcard

> n: ;Uwe
> fn:Kils
> tel;home:001 609 748 9693
> adr:;;161 South Concord Terrace;Galloway;;;
> version:2.1
> email;internet:kils at comcast.net
> end:vcard
>
>

Please use a shorter signature.
Judging by your userpage, you are a native German
speaker (You spelled some words, like English, as they
are in German).  Are you a sysop on the german wiki
yet?
--LittleDan

Hallo LittleDan,

thank you for the reply,
you are right, I was born and raised in Flensburg, from Danish roots,
studied in Kiel Biological Oceanography,
came into fights with the authorities about pollution issues (on the
side of the people)
followed an invitation into the us 8 years ago.
The krill image was the first image of an animal on the web ever, we
started it on a NeXT

good luck with your project - I hope it will be there forever

Uwe

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-------------------------
Uwe Kils

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: uwepi420.jpg
Type: image/pjpeg
Size: 112723 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030522/a429399f/attachment.bin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: kils.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 153 bytes
Desc: Card for uwe kils <kils at comcast.net>
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030522/a429399f/attachment.vcf


from_name: Richard Grevers

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

body:
On Wed, 21 May 2003 09:56:59 -0400, Alex R. <alex756 at nyc.rr.com> gave
utterance to the following:

>
> I think that the analogy with Macintosh may be a bit wrong. If someone
> gets linked to Wikipedia by putting the word larousse into a brower,
> search engine, etc., in light of  Larousse publishing English
> encyclopedias
That isn't going to happen. "Larousse" is only temporarily visible during
the transition to the new webserver. The name will not be used at all in
public once the transition is complete. My hosts use server names which
include "Scooby" and "Scrappy" but the only reason I know that is through
doing contract work for them (you might see it on a tracerout result, too).
Will Hanna-Barbera file suit? Not likely.
--
Richard Grevers
I live in my own little world


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia for education

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> Well in order to be "acceptable" in at least US public schools,
> Wikipedia would have to dramatically censored. Sadly, state and
> local school boards in the US have effectively censored the content
> of textbooks by not accepting material that could possibly be
> offensive to a very long list of lobby groups (both on the right and
> left of the political spectrum).

I wonder if NPOV would be sufficient for the bulk of this requirement.

What I mean here is that our NPOV policy and wiki process tends to
make pretty sure that no material is offensive to a very long list of
wikipedians, from a wide variety of political and cultural
backgrounds.

Not everything in wikipedia is going to be considered by mainstream
parents as appropriate for children, that's for sure.  Probably 99%
is, but I acknowledge that a large number of people do feel that
children should have even NPOV presentations of some information
withheld from them until they are older.

I heard a news story the other day that in California, textbooks
are now forbidden to mention Mount Rushmore.  See:
http://www.wtvw.com/Global/story.asp?S=1288473

Wikipedia would obviously handle that topic differently.  We would not
omit the existence of Mount Rushmore, but we would cite the names and
arguments of those who find it offensive.

A lot of the excessive political correctness that we read about in the
news is really just a lack of talent in expression.  It's entirely
possible to talk about controversial things in a way that is not
itself controversial.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Please, no more personal attacks

in_reply_to: <BAE8535E.212A%fredbaud@ctelco.net>; from fredbaud@ctelco.net on Wed, May 14, 2003 at 08:11:10PM -0600

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:
> Tannin, 172, and Jtdirl exhibit a common pattern of partisan
> behavior, of left wing historical revisionism, of deleting blocks of
> factual material that does not meet their ideological criteria.

It would be more helpful if you could give a link to a specific diff,
so that we could see for ourself that "oh, in such-and-such a case,
this person deleted this block of text, when they probably should have
just edited it to remove bias".

> My method of dealing with a group like this is just to treat them
> for most purposes as a single individual and accord them no more
> respect than I would to any single individual with a couple of
> puppets dangling from his hands.

I think it would be much better to take a deep breath and bow our
heads momentarily out of respect for the gift that someone else has
given us by writing on the topic at all.  We may not agree, but we can
respect that they have reasons for what they have written, and we can
accept our humble responsibility to join with them to make the article
better.

Feeling a lack of respect for others is not usually conducive to
level-headed thinking about how to make the article change so that it
is acceptable to us both.

> The holocaust was real, people who say it was real are telling the
> truth.  When I make a link to [[mass murder]] in an article on the
> [[communist state]] I'm not making something up.

I agree.  In this case, both sides have a responsibility to come to
the table with fresh new ideas.  How can that part of the article be
changed so that both sides will be able to view it as neutral?

> Those who would delete any mention of [[Tiananmen Square]] from the
> article on [[China]] cover themselves with shame.

I agree completely that an article on [[China]] needs to have a
mention of [[Tiananmen Square]].  What reasons were given for omitting
it?

> The abuse comes in when anyone who happens to not accept the group
> product tries to edit it and the whole bunch jumps on them. That
> would be unacceptable and not worthy of respect.

I do agree with you completely.  If a group of people are working
on something, and if they all tend to agree on a particular worldview,
then it's undoubtably helpful to them if someone with a different
perspective comes in to review the article.  The individuals in the
group, and the individual coming to the article, BOTH have some
responsibilities, of course...

1.  The newcomer should be kind and thoughtful with changes, making
minor changes to wording whenever possible, rather than wholesale
delections.

2.  The group should avoid being defensive about their work, and even
if the newcomer is wrong in some way, try to accomodate what is good
in what they are doing.

-----

One view of the wiki process is _competitive_, i.e. we each work to
insert our own bias into articles, either subtly in order to fly under
the radar or blatantly in order to have a bargaining chip in the
ensuing melee.  ("If I write that Noam Chomsky is a deranged
psychopath, they'll go ballistic, but then I'll be well fixed to offer
the 'compromise' that Noam Chomsky is an advocate of genocide.")

But a better view, the proper view, is to view the process as
_cooperative_.  We each work to eliminate our own bias in articles,
trying to help others make a presentation that's satisfactory to us
all.  ("Hmmm, this article is all praise for Noam Chomsky, but fails
to acknowledge that many people have been sharply critical of his
positions over the years.  I'll insert something to that effect,
couched as carefully as possible so as to not reveal that I personally
think that he's a deranged psychopath.")

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] My identity is being used by another and Aoineko is totally out of his wits

in_reply_to: <008301c31bbd$bbedab30$0400a8c0@aoineko>; from gblanchard@arcsy.co.jp on Sat, May 17, 2003 at 12:13:38AM +0900

body:
Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
> Anthere defended someone who used someone else nickname to make
>multi no-npov modification on a article. So, for joke I created an
>account named "Anth?re" (with accent).

I think it is probably best for us all to avoid such jokes.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Two issues here: what is legal to have on the server and what is legal in the user's nation

body:
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> Indeed, I would consider it heroic to violate local laws to post
> useful information on Wikipedia, such as first-hand descriptions of
> the acts of despotic governments, or information about how to
> defeat net access restrictions.

I agree.  I still do not recommend that people do it, out of concern
for their personal wellbeing.  In some countries, it could potentially
be very dangerous, and for that reason, I say that each person should
follow their own conscience and do what they can.

> A more tricky issue is postings that are legal elsewhere but not
> legal in California, such as the posting of information that is
> public domain in places whose legislature isn't owned by Disney.
> We probably have to supress such information, which is a shame.

Yes, I agree that we probably do, and that it is a shame in some
cases.  But usually the fact that we're doing an encyclopedia means
that we aren't all that interested in posting such information, except
in a context that's a pretty easy slam-dunk fair use, anyway.

Fortunately, by and large, the United States is still the most
free-speech friendly nation.  So it's only in some rare cases that
U.S. law might be more strict than laws elsewhere.

One striking example would be information about how to 'crack' the DVD
encryption software.  Such information is encyclopedic, but it is also
potentially illegal to post in the U.S.

--Jimbo


body:
Kurt Jansson wrote:
> BTW, is it just prudery that I seldom see nudity in american movies,
> or are there laws against it? If so, this might become a similar
> problem.

America is the porn capital of the world, so I'm not sure what kind of
movies you're watching.  Other than broadcast television and radio,
which are censored through the means of licensing, there are basically
no restrictions on nudity in movies in the United States.


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] New user TomD1939

body:
Could somebody admin-like take a look at new User:TomD1939
please?  The database seems to be in a weird state, where
his user contributions only list a couple of changes, but
"recent changes" shows more, and his user page either exists
or doesn't exist, depending on how you ask the question,
even after browser cache is cleared and page reloaded.
His changes are fine, but if his state looks weird to me,
it likely is being squirrely for him, and as a new user,
he won't know whether or not it's normal for Wikipedia.

Stan


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Two issues here:

in_reply_to: <Law14-F68qBO4FCpKjz000229ee@hotmail.com>; from wiki_tomos@hotmail.com on Fri, May 16, 2003 at 08:43:57PM +0000

body:
Tomos at Wikipedia wrote:
> In U.S. context, I guess admins may be held liable if they do not
> delete obscene or defamatory content after a notice/objection from a
> user. (Or is it the project as a whole rather than admins which
> would be held liable?)

It's pretty hard to find anything these days that meets the legal
definition of 'obscene' in U.S. law.  But there are lots of things
that aren't legally obscene (mainstream hardcore pornography, for
example) that of course have no place on wikipedia.

Defamation is another matter.

But I don't see any liability for sysops for these things.  The
project as a whole could be liable, but "good faith" counts for a lot
with the courts -- if anyone notifies us that they want something
taken down, then in *most* cases, we'll just take it down.  The "good
part" of the DMCA gives me a "safe harbor" for lots of things like
that.

The bounds of good taste should keep us very very far from the bounds
of the law.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Back to the source no NPOV

body:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANPOV

I think there's some confusion popping up about NPOV, evidenced in
part by Cunc's suggestion that NPOV is a Platonic ideal.  I think I
know what he means, and I might agree with him in a way, but I think
other people may be misunderstanding what he's saying.  (Or, perhaps I
just disagree with Cunc.)

Geoff Burling 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." ;-)

If someone says that, then they are confusing NPOV with "objective" or
"unbiases" or "true" or "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" or
something like that.

But NPOV is a _social_ concept, as opposed to an _epistemological_
concept.  What I mean is that NPOV is defend by the agreement of
supporters and opponents of any particular thing.

If someone says that I'm not objective about, say, the crimes of
the Soviet Union, then it's valid for me to respond: "Yes, I am.
It is my opponent who is biased, who is trying to whitewash."
In the wikipedia context, arguments about objectivity or truth
would be endless.

But if someone says that a particular statement of mine is not NPOV,
that's a different matter.  Lots of perfectly true and objective
statements are not NPOV, because they would be disputed by people who
are reasonable but mistaken.

As I wrote in the original statement of my idea of NPOV, "Of course,
100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who
will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement
of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is
agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular
points."

What's really true or false enters into NPOV only indirectly.

--Jimbo


from_name: Christopher Mahan

subject: [WikiEN-l] IRA

body:
--- Dante Alighieri <dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com> wrote:
> I noticed that the entry for IRA is a straight redirect to Irish
> Republican
> Army. Should it be a disambiguation page? IRA is also Individual
> Retirement
> Account. There is no preexisting article on the Individual
> Retirement
> Account as far as I know, and there are MANY links to IRA as the
> Irish
> Republican Army, so.... I don't know. Thoughts?

Go right ahead.

=====
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
818.943.1850 cell
http://www.christophermahan.com/

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


from_name: Brion Vibber

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

body:
Je ?a?do 22 Majo 2003 08:11, Bill at ng3k.com skribis:
> On 21 May 2003 at 14:33, Toby Bartels wrote:
> > This is what it comes down to.
> > Is the name "larousse" going to promulgated to the outside?
> > My understanding is no ... people won't even find it in the DNS
> > servers. A Google search for "larousse Wikipedia" should never find
> > anything besides our articles on Larousse and the discussions on
> > this maling list.
> >
> > If that's not the case ... then we may have a problem.
> > But that's my understanding of the set-up.
>
> Oh sure, the name is part of the DNS system.

I should point out that the way our DNS is set up, *every* possible
subdomain exists, should one look for it:

$ host webster.wikipedia.org
webster.wikipedia.org has address 130.94.122.197
$ host encarta.wikipedia.org
encarta.wikipedia.org has address 130.94.122.197
$ host groliers.wikipedia.org
groliers.wikipedia.org has address 130.94.122.197
$ host goatse.cx.wikipedia.org
goatse.cx.wikipedia.org has address 130.94.122.197
$ host akfljsdiovw.wikipedia.org
akfljsdiovw.wikipedia.org has address 130.94.122.197

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Two issues here:

in_reply_to: <Law14-F80xxWn9R6mJB0002564c@hotmail.com>; from wiki_tomos@hotmail.com on Sat, May 17, 2003 at 09:41:16PM +0000

body:
Tomos at Wikipedia wrote:
> 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.

It's o.k. to delete anything that violates someone's privacy -- not
because of the law, but because we're writing an encyclopedia, not
acting as a faciltator for bad behavior of any kind.

In any specific case, you could ask me what to do if you aren't sure.
If I were to tell you "no, don't delete that", then surely your
obligation under Japanese law would be satisfied, as you would no
longer have the right to delete the material.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Votes for deletion

body:
The Cunctator wrote:
> 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.

*grumble*, *grumble*, yeah, I guess I have to agree.  :-)

There are things, though, that Have Been Decided.  They are never
beyond further discussion, of course.  And if I ever fall into
refusing to discuss some unpopular policy, or refusing to change it in
the face of major criticism, then I fully expect people to hold my
feet to the fire.

Having said that, should we discuss the deletion policy?

--Jimbo


body:
Je ?a?do 22 Majo 2003 09:24, Jimmy Wales skribis:
> Kurt Jansson wrote:
> > BTW, is it just prudery that I seldom see nudity in american
> > movies, or are there laws against it? If so, this might become a
> > similar problem.
>
> America is the porn capital of the world, so I'm not sure what kind
> of movies you're watching.  Other than broadcast television and
> radio, which are censored through the means of licensing, there are
> basically no restrictions on nudity in movies in the United States.

The movie ratings system in the United States is a voluntary
self-censorship regime managed by the industry itself. Nudity tends to
be limited in general-release films (as opposed to porn ;) because
we're also a country of prudes and puritans.

Nudity generally leads to an "R" (restricted) rating or higher, which
severely limits the audience: most theaters and rental outlets,
following the voluntary rating system, won't allow underage kids to see
those films without adult supervision. Some outlets may not show
R-rated films *at all,* particularly in small towns. Since the most
profitable segment of the movie-going audience is teenage boys, an
R-rated movie is less profitable than a film that can get a lower
rating and receive a bigger share of the teen audience. So, the
industry tends to favor films that don't quite hit the R.

See http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPAA_film_rating_system for more
details on the ratings system and its history.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV and controversial material

in_reply_to: <20030521214159.70672.qmail@web41804.mail.yahoo.com>; from littledanehren@yahoo.com on Wed, May 21, 2003 at 02:41:59PM -0700

body:
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
> In case you didn't know, Daniel Ehrenberg and
> LittleDan are the same person.

Yes, I know.

> Some people (not me) think a lack of a "drugs are
> evil" stance are just as bad as if you lacked a
> "murder is bad" stance (although then those people
> turn around and say "war is peace; let's bomb iraq"
> and "killing people will help reduce murder rates").

Hmmm, I'm not sure where I fit into all that.  I don't think drugs are
evil, I do think murder is bad.  I don't think "war is peace", not
literally, but I *very strongly* supported the liberation of Iraq, and
although I'm opposed to the death penalty, I do think it is possible
that in some instances, killing people would help reduce murder rates.

:-)

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Lir and his clones

in_reply_to: <20030521215919.74952.qmail@web41804.mail.yahoo.com>; from littledanehren@yahoo.com on Wed, May 21, 2003 at 02:59:19PM -0700

body:
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
> In all of the other wikis (except for the ones modeled
> after us), there is no "supreme-dictator-for-life" (as
> you put it, perhaps humorsly, in a previous post).

I don't think I ever said that, but if I did, I want to make sure to
dispel the notion that I think such a thing would be appropriate.

I'm the servant of wikipedia, not the master.

> On many of the About, FAQ, and similar pages, you state that
> Wikipedia is an anarchy, but that really is not true.

I also don't think Wikipedia is an anarchy.

--Jimbo


from_name: Daniel Ehrenberg

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Lir and his clones

body:
--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
> Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
> > In all of the other wikis (except for the ones
> modeled
> > after us), there is no "supreme-dictator-for-life"
> (as
> > you put it, perhaps humorsly, in a previous post).
>
> I don't think I ever said that, but if I did, I want
> to make sure to
> dispel the notion that I think such a thing would be
> appropriate.
>
> I'm the servant of wikipedia, not the master.

Someone wrote it when describing the heirarchy of
wikipedia.
>
> > On many of the About, FAQ, and similar pages, you
> state that
> > Wikipedia is an anarchy, but that really is not
> true.
>
> I also don't think Wikipedia is an anarchy.
>
> --Jimbo
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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


in_reply_to: <20030522175538.94906.qmail@web41803.mail.yahoo.com>; from littledanehren@yahoo.com on Thu, May 22, 2003 at 10:55:38AM -0700

body:
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
> The [[communist state]] article was intended for the
> discussion of how the communist system was *supposed
> to * work. If you are writing about how it actually
> works in real life, you should write at [[communist
> government]].

Then neither of those titles is very good, as they don't adequately
summarize the intention of the page, right?

--Jimbo


body:
--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
> > The holocaust was real, people who say it was real
> are telling the
> > truth.  When I make a link to [[mass murder]] in
> an article on the
> > [[communist state]] I'm not making something up.
>
> I agree.  In this case, both sides have a
> responsibility to come to
> the table with fresh new ideas.  How can that part
> of the article be
> changed so that both sides will be able to view it
> as neutral?
> --Jimbo

The [[communist state]] article was intended for the
discussion of how the communist system was *supposed
to * work. If you are writing about how it actually
works in real life, you should write at [[communist
government]].
--LittleDan

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Back to the source no NPOV

in_reply_to: <BAF26C38.23DF%fredbaud@ctelco.net>; from fredbaud@ctelco.net on Thu, May 22, 2003 at 11:59:52AM -0600

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:
> > But NPOV is a _social_ concept, as opposed to an _epistemological_
> > concept.  What I mean is that NPOV is defend by the agreement of
> > supporters and opponents of any particular thing.
>
> See:
>
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socially_constructed_reality

I should make clear here, for my own personal philosophical reasons,
that I'm not at all a fan of any theory which defines truth or
knowledge as somehow "socially constructed".  I'm a believer in the
correspondence theory of truth, the validity of the senses, the
efficacy of reason, the methods of objectivity.  What's true is true,
and humans are capable of finding and knowing the truth.

That doesn't mean, though, that they can all agree on what is True,
nor does it mean that a social process for collaborative writing can't
justifiably rely on a socially-driven standard.

--Jimbo


body:
Je ?a?do 22 Majo 2003 10:55, Daniel Ehrenberg skribis:
> The [[communist state]] article was intended for the
> discussion of how the communist system was *supposed
> to * work. If you are writing about how it actually
> works in real life, you should write at [[communist
> government]].

Pardon me, but that seems like a real strange way to make the
distinction. Wouldnt' it make more sense to split it up explicitly?

eg,
  [[Communist states in theory]]
  [[Communist states in practice]]

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Bill at ng3k.com

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

body:
On 21 May 2003 at 14:33, Toby Bartels wrote:

> This is what it comes down to.
> Is the name "larousse" going to promulgated to the outside?
> My understanding is no ... people won't even find it in the DNS servers.
> A Google search for "larousse Wikipedia" should never find anything
> besides our articles on Larousse and the discussions on this maling list.

> If that's not the case ... then we may have a problem.
> But that's my understanding of the set-up.

Oh sure, the name is part of the DNS system.  It has to
be.  Towit:

  >nslookup larousse.wikipedia.org

  Name:    larousse.wikipedia.org
  Address:  130.94.122.199

That said, it will only be seen if someone goes looking
for it.

Bill


from_name: Lee Daniel Crocker

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Sound on wikipedia

body:
> (Guillaume Blanchard <gblanchard at arcsy.co.jp>):
> I have some question about sound on Wikipedia.
>
> 1) Ogg format is a recommendation or an obligation ?
> 1 bis) Can we use other format like mp3, wav, etc... ?
> 2) Do you planed to support feature like <embed> ?

1) Ogg is recommended because it's a public standard,
freely available on all computers. MP3 has patent problems,
but is a de facto standard and should also be OK (if the
only source material you have is MP3, don't bother recoding
to Ogg as that will only reduce quality further). WAV is
uncompressed, and therefore unacceptable except in the
rarest of cases (I can only think of a few: like short test
sounds in articles about digital signal processing).

2) No, I don't ever plan to support embed. Sounds sould
play on demand only. I do plan to make some nicer features
for audio and video playback at some point.

--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee at piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC


subject: [WikiEN-l] The Wiki Search Function Now Works!

body:
Je Merkredo 21 Majo 2003 19:56, Geoff Burling skribis:
> The subject line of my email says it all. Yay!
>
> Who wants to take credit for restoring this valuable feature?

Well, I turned it back on, but you can thank Jimbo for getting our new
server, Jason for setting it up, and Lee for installing the software,
so we could spread around the server load and shore up performance
enough to turn it back on.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [Wikitech-l] Multilingual wiki search

body:
Je ?a?do 22 Majo 2003 05:31, Giskart skribis:
> http://pliny.wikipedia.org/tools/wikisearch.php
>
> "Multilingual wiki search temporarily disabled on account of server
> is slow as heck"
>
> Now, whit the new server, can it be made active again?

I was thinking of rewriting it to talk to the databases directly, but
I'll put it back up for now...

> There used to be only one hyperlink out of that page. A link to
> http://www.wikipedia.com
>
> Can that be changed to
> http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_provisional_portal_of_Wikipedia  ?

Sure, why not? :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


body:
> (Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com>):

> > BTW, is it just prudery that I seldom see nudity in american movies,
> > or are there laws against it? If so, this might become a similar
> > problem.
>
> America is the porn capital of the world,...

Apparently Jim has never been to Amsterdam. :-)

But for the most part, he's right: there are no restrictions on
nudity in movies, but the American market is such that too much
explicit sex will actually hurt the mass-market value of a movie.
French folks don't have a problem taking their kids to nice
family movie that happens to have a bit of nudity in it. American
parents in the heartland will consider a movie with any nudity to
be for adults only, and its market will be hurt.

--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee at piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Back to the source no NPOV

body:
> But NPOV is a _social_ concept, as opposed to an _epistemological_
> concept.  What I mean is that NPOV is defend by the agreement of
> supporters and opponents of any particular thing.

See:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socially_constructed_reality

Fred

> From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com>
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 09:56:03 -0700
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Back to the source no NPOV
>
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANPOV
>
> I think there's some confusion popping up about NPOV, evidenced in
> part by Cunc's suggestion that NPOV is a Platonic ideal.  I think I
> know what he means, and I might agree with him in a way, but I think
> other people may be misunderstanding what he's saying.  (Or, perhaps I
> just disagree with Cunc.)
>
> Geoff Burling 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." ;-)
>
> If someone says that, then they are confusing NPOV with "objective" or
> "unbiases" or "true" or "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" or
> something like that.
>
> But NPOV is a _social_ concept, as opposed to an _epistemological_
> concept.  What I mean is that NPOV is defend by the agreement of
> supporters and opponents of any particular thing.
>
> If someone says that I'm not objective about, say, the crimes of
> the Soviet Union, then it's valid for me to respond: "Yes, I am.
> It is my opponent who is biased, who is trying to whitewash."
> In the wikipedia context, arguments about objectivity or truth
> would be endless.
>
> But if someone says that a particular statement of mine is not NPOV,
> that's a different matter.  Lots of perfectly true and objective
> statements are not NPOV, because they would be disputed by people who
> are reasonable but mistaken.
>
> As I wrote in the original statement of my idea of NPOV, "Of course,
> 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who
> will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement
> of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is
> agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular
> points."
>
> What's really true or false enters into NPOV only indirectly.
>
> --Jimbo
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: steven l. rubenstein

subject: [WikiEN-l] New user TomD1939

body:
I don't know enough about the system to explain it, but yes, I find the
same problem that Stan reports., Steve

At 09:30 AM 5/22/2003 -0700, you wrote:

>Could somebody admin-like take a look at new User:TomD1939
>please?  The database seems to be in a weird state, where
>his user contributions only list a couple of changes, but
>"recent changes" shows more, and his user page either exists
>or doesn't exist, depending on how you ask the question,
>even after browser cache is cleared and page reloaded.
>His changes are fine, but if his state looks weird to me,
>it likely is being squirrely for him, and as a new user,
>he won't know whether or not it's normal for Wikipedia.
>
>Stan
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.478 / Virus Database: 275 - Release Date: 5/6/2003

Steven L. Rubenstein
Assistant Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
-------------- next part --------------

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.478 / Virus Database: 275 - Release Date: 5/6/2003


body:
> > But for the most part, he's right: there are no restrictions on
> > nudity in movies, but the American market is such that too much
> > explicit sex will actually hurt the mass-market value of a movie.
> > French folks don't have a problem taking their kids to nice
> > family movie that happens to have a bit of nudity in it. American
> > parents in the heartland will consider a movie with any nudity to
> > be for adults only, and its market will be hurt.
>
> While technically true, that's grossly misleading. There are few
> legal restrictions on nudity in the movies, but there are draconian
> quasi-legal industry restrictions.
>
> Instead of "the American market is such that too much explicit sex will
> actually hurt the mass-market value of a movie" the more accurate
> portrayal is
>
> Any explicit sex will prevent a movie from being shown in any mainstream
> theater, with few exceptions.
>
> The MPAA decides the moral code for acceptable movies with an iron fist,
> often demanding changes to the movie for it to get a "non-adult" rating.
>
> Any movie they deem to be NC-17 has no financial future in U.S. movie
> theaters.

Cunc is the one misrepresenting the facts here: there are /no/
legal restrictions on nudity in movies of any kind, period. Yes, the
MPAA rules with "an iron fist", but it is precisely because that's
the way the American public wants it. He may not like the fact that
most Americans want it that way, but the fact remains that they do.
There have certainly been protests of the MPAA (and I personally
consider Jack Valenti to be the Antichrist, for many reasons), but
those protests have been from a small minority of folks like us, not
from the people as a whole, who still overwhelmingly support them.
You can't blame the failure of adult-only movies on anything but
good old American prudery.

--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee at piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Two issues here: what is legal to have on the
	server and what is legal in the user's nation

body:
On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 12:49, Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> > (Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com>):
>
> > > BTW, is it just prudery that I seldom see nudity in american movies,
> > > or are there laws against it? If so, this might become a similar
> > > problem.
> >
> > America is the porn capital of the world,...
>
> Apparently Jim has never been to Amsterdam. :-)
>
> But for the most part, he's right: there are no restrictions on
> nudity in movies, but the American market is such that too much
> explicit sex will actually hurt the mass-market value of a movie.
> French folks don't have a problem taking their kids to nice
> family movie that happens to have a bit of nudity in it. American
> parents in the heartland will consider a movie with any nudity to
> be for adults only, and its market will be hurt.

While technically true, that's grossly misleading. There are few legal
restrictions on nudity in the movies, but there are draconian
quasi-legal industry restrictions.

Instead of "the American market is such that too much explicit sex will
actually hurt the mass-market value of a movie" the more accurate
portrayal is

Any explicit sex will prevent a movie from being shown in any mainstream
theater, with few exceptions.

The MPAA decides the moral code for acceptable movies with an iron fist,
often demanding changes to the movie for it to get a "non-adult" rating.

Any movie they deem to be NC-17 has no financial future in U.S. movie
theaters.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Where's the picture of Chumbawamba gone???

body:
On Thu, 22 May 2003, Lee Pilich wrote:
> At 21:46 22/05/2003 +0100, Graham (Quercus rober) wrote:
> >Hi- anybody know aht's happened to the image I posted up a while back of
> >Chumbawamba at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chumbawamba.jpg ? It
> >seems to have been deleted...
>
> It has indeed disappeared, apparently into thin air. I daresay some
> friendly developer will be able to have a look into what's happened (it's
> the revision of 22:06 22 Nov 2002 that's missing).

No idea what happened. I've copied it back off the old server and restored
that version to be current.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Giskart

subject: [Wikitech-l] Multilingual wiki search

body:
http://pliny.wikipedia.org/tools/wikisearch.php

"Multilingual wiki search temporarily disabled on account of server is
slow as heck"

Now, whit the new server, can it be made active again?

There used to be only one hyperlink out of that page. A link to
http://www.wikipedia.com

Can that be changed to
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_provisional_portal_of_Wikipedia  ?

--
Contact: giskart AT wikipedia.be
Ook een artikeltje schrijven? WikipediaNL, de vrije GNU/FDL encyclopedie
http://www.wikipedia.be


subject: [WikiEN-l] NO-FX ban

body:
On Fri, 23 May 2003, Erik Moeller wrote:
> No-Fx has vandalized Zoe's user page. He appears to be yet another
> reincarnation of the banned user Michael, working on the same articles in
> the same style and not responding to messages.
>
> So, should we ban him? He will probably just reappear under a new name,
> but if we do this often enough, he might be deterred.

It seems he's found a delightful game: bait the Wikipedians and watch them
swat. People play this game with their cats all the time; neither cat nor
human ever seem to tire of it.

But what if the cat stops swatting? The cruel human will get bored and
stop taunting the poor cat with yarn / flashlight / laser pointer.

Stop giving him the satisfaction of making a big fuss. Just revert crap
that's crap, and work with stuff that's good (should there be any). What
more do we need?

> I should point out that the problem of users appearing under dozens of
> names would probably go away if we required an email confirmation during
> signup, although that might deter some users from creating an account.

You have heard of hotmail and yahoo, right? :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


body:
> (The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com>):
>
> Yes there are: try child prOn, indecency and obscenity laws.

Those are not restrictions on "nudity". Nude pictures of children
are perfectly legal in the US, as long as they're not engaged in
sexual acts or otherwise presented as erotic. And even some that
are clearly erotic are acceptable in some circumstances ("Pretty
Baby" and "American Beauty" come to mind).

> But this isn't a disgreement about facts, just which facts are
> important. I should have said "I think it's grossly misleading".

Agreed. I just thought it a bit unfair to demonize the MPAA when
for the most part it is the American public itself that's the
problem.  Our prudery is not a case of an authoritarian minority
oppressing the freedom-loving masses; it's a case of the
authoritarian masses oppressing the freedom-loving minority.
It is not a failure of democracy, but a natural negative
consequence of it.

--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee at piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] How to get the IP of a logged user ?

body:
--- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee at piclab.com> wrote:
> >> Daniel C Boyer... you know, this "*relatively*
> unknown"
> >> US painter. There had been a lot of discussions
> on en: wiki to
> >> admit "him" as an article.
> >
> > I really don't see what your problem is. It's not
> like we're about
> > to run out of space. There's no need to harass
> Boyer.
> >
> > Finally, wikitech-l at wikipedia.org is not the
> appropriate place to
> > discuss trying to stalk other users.
>
> I'm definitely with Cunc here on both counts. I
> don't have a
> problem with anyone being both a contributer and a
> subject--we've
> already had that case before, and it's no problem as
> long as the
> subject understands that the article about him in
> the main wikipedia
> space is not his personal page, and may be edited by
> others in ways
> he doesn't like.
>
> And yes, this is clearly not a "tech" issue, so I've
> moved it to
> the main list.

I only half agree with you and TC, Lee

I agree with the fact we don't lack space, and I have
been (nearly alone, thanks ffx) strongly supporting
keeping Daniel page. I see not where is the pb in
keeping it. Of course, I see nothing wrong with edits
made by Daniel, or by any anonymous ip on this
article. The facts reported by Daniel or another are
strictly exact. If there were biased, someone would
edit them, and that would be all there would be to say
about it.

But there is no sense in discussing it any further
since the page will be deleted anyway. Most
french-speaking prefer removing information rather
than risking offering a little bit of fame to an
artist, boo!.

However, where I *disagree*, is that the place where
Alvaro asked the question was the right one.

Maybe you didnot understand the question ?
Alvaro thinks it is wrong that Daniel himself edit his
article page. He thinks that is another good reason to
delete the article. So, he wanted facts to support his
case.
He wanted to know whether that anonymous ip was Daniel
or someone else. In short, he wanted to know how he
could retrieve Daniel IP address.

I guess his question was a technical one; so it is
quite natural his reaction was to ask that question
here. It was perhaps a wrong question, but it was, to
his view, the right place.

And I don't think he was offered the right answer. Not
everyone is aware of unspoken rules.

Anthere (without accent)

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


from_name: David A. Wheeler

subject: [Wikitech-l] Countering the vandals who attack users (not just pages)

body:
Sadly, it appears that there are some hurtful vandals out there
who are attacking the people trying to counter them. For example,
User:Zoe has just posted that she's abandoning her efforts to counter
vandals; see: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%3AZoe
which begins: "I'm tired of fighting, I'm tired of arguing,
I'm tired of being called names."
The last straw seems to have been an edit by No-Fx to Zoe's
user page, in which No-Fx made it appear that Zoe was "into oral sex".
I don't know enough about this situation to know for sure if this
is an example, but I am concerned about the long-term dangers
if this starts a trend.

Attacks on users and sysops - particularly highly dedicated ones -
are much more dangerous to the Wikipedia than
simple attacks on a few pages.  If these kinds of attacks cause
people to stop weeding out bad pages or vandals for
fear of retribution, the project is doomed.

Is there any way the software could be modified to make it harder
for vandals to counter-attack the people who are trying to
remove vandalism?

At the least, why not let the User:NAME pages be ONLY editable
by NAME?  The "User_talk:" spaces need to be editable in some way,
but I don't see a need for others to "fix" the User: space of someone;
it's not critical that that content be fixed, and there's advantanges
to having some areas that are "precious" to each user.

Here's a more controversial idea: perhaps some
information relating to deletion of pages and banning of users
should be hidden from non-sysops.  For example,
since "delete" can only be done by sysops, why not just tell
non-sysops that a deletion occurred, but not WHICH sysop did it?
By the same token, perhaps some discussion areas should be
only readable/writeable by sysops, in particular a discussion
area to discuss banning someone.  Perhaps there could be a way
where anyone (non-sysop) could suggest that someone be banned,
without having their name revealed to non-sysops.
Since real deletes and banning can only be done by sysops anyway,
and sysops are trusted, there's no reason this information
MUST be public.

A related idea might be to modify the "talk" system so that it's
more like a bulletin board, with threaded messages and
a clear identification of who made it (click on "reply" to reply
to that item, maybe in a threaded way). That way, any message is
clearly
identified with its REAL author.  A side-effect would be that
the attribution would happen automatically (no more
forgetting ~~~~).  That way, when people discuss things, they
can't make it appear that someone else made an outrageous/nasty
statement.

The goal here would be to prevent people from attacking each other,
or at least limit its effectiveness.

Thoughts?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Votes for deletion

body:
Is 64.12.96.14
the (banned?) No-Fx?  I checked its contributions which are all seemingly
innocuous stuff on video games, but I think s/he made a vandalous
contribution to Zoe's page which JohnOwens reverted...
Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Assistant Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030522/d3e69fe5/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] NO-FX ban

body:
On Thu, 22 May 2003, steven l. rubenstein wrote:
> Brion, I think that ultimately, you are right -- vigilance and patient
> deletion or reversion is the only way to deal with such a troll.  But even
> reverting crap is a form of swatting.  If the question is whether we simply
> ignore someone and let them do what they want, or act in some way against
> vandalism, it seems we all agree on some form of action.
>
> The question is, what form.  From context it seems like you are arguing
> against banning.  Well -- and I raise this as a general question, not just
> concerning No-FX -- would you ban under any circumstances?

Oh, sure; indeed I have made bans where it seemed appropriate. A visit to
[[Special:Ipblocks]] will show that. But repeatedly "banning" the same
person over and over, when proven ineffective with that person, is rather
pointless. The social effects of the ban haven't discouraged the person
(indeed, perhaps encouraged them), and they've found a way around the very
simple technical effects of the ban.

Obviously a change in strategy is required if we want to do anything
other than re-ban Lir and Michael all day long. To continue to use the
same strategy that we *know* is ineffective is neurotic.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia for education

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
>>Well in order to be "acceptable" in at least US public schools,
>>Wikipedia would have to dramatically censored. Sadly, state and
>>local school boards in the US have effectively censored the content
>>of textbooks by not accepting material that could possibly be
>>offensive to a very long list of lobby groups (both on the right and
>>left of the political spectrum).
>>
>I wonder if NPOV would be sufficient for the bulk of this requirement.
>
>What I mean here is that our NPOV policy and wiki process tends to
>make pretty sure that no material is offensive to a very long list of
>wikipedians, from a wide variety of political and cultural
>backgrounds.
>
>Not everything in wikipedia is going to be considered by mainstream
>parents as appropriate for children, that's for sure.  Probably 99%
>is, but I acknowledge that a large number of people do feel that
>children should have even NPOV presentations of some information
>withheld from them until they are older.
>
>I heard a news story the other day that in California, textbooks
>are now forbidden to mention Mount Rushmore.  See:
>http://www.wtvw.com/Global/story.asp?S=1288473
>
>Wikipedia would obviously handle that topic differently.  We would not
>omit the existence of Mount Rushmore, but we would cite the names and
>arguments of those who find it offensive.
>
>A lot of the excessive political correctness that we read about in the
>news is really just a lack of talent in expression.  It's entirely
>possible to talk about controversial things in a way that is not
>itself controversial.
>
I just read that news story.  It shows how deeply embedded the dumbing
down process has become.  The most significant fact is that the textbook
publishers want to sell books, and they will do whatever it takes to
maximize their market share.  If that means pandering to the lowest
common denominator that's what they'll do.  That's not the same as NPOV.

The NPOV process happens openly right in front of everybody.  Both sides
of an issue get a full airing on the way to a mutually acceptable
understanding.  The distilled results of that process are akin to only
showing final answers on a math test.

Ec


body:
On Thu, 22 May 2003, Anthere wrote:
> Maybe you didnot understand the question ?
> Alvaro thinks it is wrong that Daniel himself edit his
> article page. He thinks that is another good reason to
> delete the article. So, he wanted facts to support his
> case.
> He wanted to know whether that anonymous ip was Daniel
> or someone else. In short, he wanted to know how he
> could retrieve Daniel IP address.

Presently, the IP address of a logged-in user can only be retrieved by
comparing their edits against the web server log file, which means only a
few people with login access to the server can do it.

In order to protect the privacy of users, on general principle this is
only done in cases of grievous vandalism. I would consider it bad form to
write an article about yourself, but not vandalism. Daniel can choose to
answer himself whether he wrote it or not.

(Note: old log files are cleared out about once every week or two.)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


body:
On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 13:56, Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> > > But for the most part, he's right: there are no restrictions on
> > > nudity in movies, but the American market is such that too much
> > > explicit sex will actually hurt the mass-market value of a movie.
> > > French folks don't have a problem taking their kids to nice
> > > family movie that happens to have a bit of nudity in it. American
> > > parents in the heartland will consider a movie with any nudity to
> > > be for adults only, and its market will be hurt.
> >
> > While technically true, that's grossly misleading. There are few
> > legal restrictions on nudity in the movies, but there are draconian
> > quasi-legal industry restrictions.
> >
> > Instead of "the American market is such that too much explicit sex will
> > actually hurt the mass-market value of a movie" the more accurate
> > portrayal is
> >
> > Any explicit sex will prevent a movie from being shown in any mainstream
> > theater, with few exceptions.
> >
> > The MPAA decides the moral code for acceptable movies with an iron fist,
> > often demanding changes to the movie for it to get a "non-adult" rating.
> >
> > Any movie they deem to be NC-17 has no financial future in U.S. movie
> > theaters.
>
> Cunc is the one misrepresenting the facts here: there are /no/
> legal restrictions on nudity in movies of any kind, period. Yes, the
> MPAA rules with "an iron fist", but it is precisely because that's
> the way the American public wants it. He may not like the fact that
> most Americans want it that way, but the fact remains that they do.
> There have certainly been protests of the MPAA (and I personally
> consider Jack Valenti to be the Antichrist, for many reasons), but
> those protests have been from a small minority of folks like us, not
> from the people as a whole, who still overwhelmingly support them.
> You can't blame the failure of adult-only movies on anything but
> good old American prudery.

Yes there are: try child prOn, indecency and obscenity laws. Period. I
never claimed that the American public doesn't like the way the MPAA
operates. However, to believe that the current movie distribution system
is the only one acceptable to the American public would be naive.

But this isn't a disgreement about facts, just which facts are
important. I should have said "I think it's grossly misleading".


body:
On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 14:01, Brion Vibber wrote:
> Je ?a?do 22 Majo 2003 10:55, Daniel Ehrenberg skribis:
> > The [[communist state]] article was intended for the
> > discussion of how the communist system was *supposed
> > to * work. If you are writing about how it actually
> > works in real life, you should write at [[communist
> > government]].
>
> Pardon me, but that seems like a real strange way to make the
> distinction. Wouldnt' it make more sense to split it up explicitly?
>
> eg,
>   [[Communist states in theory]]
>   [[Communist states in practice]]

Yes, it would. Gotta love that passive voice: "the [[communist state]]
article was intended..." By whom, I wonder.

Moreover, if you read the content of the [[communist state]] entry, it's
evident that it's not just about theory.


body:
>> Daniel C Boyer... you know, this "*relatively* unknown"
>> US painter. There had been a lot of discussions on en: wiki to
>> admit "him" as an article.
>
> I really don't see what your problem is. It's not like we're about
> to run out of space. There's no need to harass Boyer.
>
> Finally, wikitech-l at wikipedia.org is not the appropriate place to
> discuss trying to stalk other users.

I'm definitely with Cunc here on both counts. I don't have a
problem with anyone being both a contributer and a subject--we've
already had that case before, and it's no problem as long as the
subject understands that the article about him in the main wikipedia
space is not his personal page, and may be edited by others in ways
he doesn't like.

And yes, this is clearly not a "tech" issue, so I've moved it to
the main list.

--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee at piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC


body:
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:

>There have certainly been protests of the MPAA (and I personally
>consider Jack Valenti to be the Antichrist, for many reasons),
>
It's refreshing to hear that Americans also share that opinion about him
:-)

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin nominations

body:
--- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:
> Anth?re (but forced to be only Anthere on [[fr:]])
> wrote:
>
> >Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> >>Being a sysop is only a status thing in the sense
> that it means that
> >>you're trusted not to post obscene material on the
> homepage, to use
> >>certain destructive commands only in accordance
> with long-established
> >>custom, if at all, and that you'll help police
> against vandals in a
> >>gentle and caring way.
>
> >All being behaviors that anybody could follow,
> without
> >being necessary a sysop. Being gentle, caring,
> loving
> >and trusted, is not the prerogative of a sysop.
>
> Indeed, all things that anybody could and should do.
> But you can't become a sysop unless we *trust* that
> you will do them.
> Thus, becoming a sysop indicates that such trust
> exists, a status bonus.
> Not being a sysop hardly proves that such trust does
> *not* exist --
> but it leaves open that possibility, so not a status
> bonus.
>
> Still, you are right, we should ignore this status
> bonus.
> Being a sysop is not meant to be a status thing.
>
>
> -- Toby

Nod.
Recently, many people were proposed to be sysops. They
were mostly sold the "trust" display, rather than what
syosp really is (a police force). The more sysops
there are, the less trust will be granted to non
sysops, imho.

This said, I deeply thank those who have expressed
their trust in me :-)

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


subject: [Wikitech-l] How to get the IP of a logged user ?

body:
On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 16:34, alvaro wrote:
> Hello,
>
> My problem is :
>
> Daniel C Boyer... you know, this "*relatively* unknown" US painter.
> There had been a lot of discussions on en:wki to admit "him" as an article.
>
> The same problem exists on fr: with the same Daniel C Boyer (DCB).
>
> This afternoon, an anonym IP made 2 contributions, adding the DCB's
> birth date in the ephemerids and details on the DCB entry.
>
> Then, 30 seconds later, the known DCB user made 2 little (minuscule)
> contributions, I think to say "you see, I'm not here just to make my
> advertising, I make contributions".
>
> I feel this is unfair ! and I wanted to check from where (traceroute)
> these contributions were made.
>
I really don't see what your problem is. It's not like we're about to
run out of space. There's no need to harass Boyer.

Finally, wikitech-l at wikipedia.org is not the appropriate place to
discuss trying to stalk other users.


body:
--- julien tayon <julien at tayon.net> wrote:
> I see a point, what we try to improve is not space
> or memory usage. The
> point is to promote NPOV. Don't you think that the
> opposite of
> objectivity is subjectivity, so to say being both
> the topic and the
> writer, or the judge and the trialed.
> I don't it is possible for anyone to write about
> himself
> ?objectively? therefore the behaviour in itself is
> flawed. Having NPOV
> articles also means promoting NPOV behaviour.
>
> It is my opinion and I agree with it. ;)

That is quite a good opinion imho dear Jul

But just to put things back into perspective
The article is stating
*the date and place of birth of the man
*states he is a paintor
*cite books published and movies made

To be blunt, that is a perfectly *factual* (and rather
boring imho) article. There are no opinions cited. No
statement about the quality of his paintings or
anything similar.

hard to see what pov could be there...even if written
by the artist himself.

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


body:
Anthere wrote:

>--- Brion Vibber <vibber at aludra.usc.edu> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 May 2003, Anthere wrote:
>>
>>>Another suggestion : why not making the whole
>>>wikipedia read only for non-sysop users ?
>>>
>>Careful there. Remember we Americans are notoriously
>>bad at recognizing
>>sarcasm. :)
>>
>>-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>>
>
>I trust canadians to remind americans if necessary :-)
>
What makes you think they listen to us any better than to anybody else?
  :-P


body:
--- "David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler at dwheeler.com> wrote:
> Sadly, it appears that there are some hurtful
> vandals out there
> who are attacking the people trying to counter them.
> For example,
> User:Zoe has just posted that she's abandoning her
> efforts to counter
> vandals; see:
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%3AZoe
> which begins: "I'm tired of fighting, I'm tired of
> arguing,
> I'm tired of being called names."
> The last straw seems to have been an edit by No-Fx
> to Zoe's
> user page, in which No-Fx made it appear that Zoe
> was "into oral sex".
> I don't know enough about this situation to know for
> sure if this
> is an example, but I am concerned about the
> long-term dangers
> if this starts a trend.
>
> Attacks on users and sysops - particularly highly
> dedicated ones -
> are much more dangerous to the Wikipedia than
> simple attacks on a few pages.  If these kinds of
> attacks cause
> people to stop weeding out bad pages or vandals for
> fear of retribution, the project is doomed.
>
> Is there any way the software could be modified to
> make it harder
> for vandals to counter-attack the people who are
> trying to
> remove vandalism?
>
> At the least, why not let the User:NAME pages be
> ONLY editable
> by NAME?  The "User_talk:" spaces need to be
> editable in some way,
> but I don't see a need for others to "fix" the User:
> space of someone;
> it's not critical that that content be fixed, and
> there's advantanges
> to having some areas that are "precious" to each
> user.
>
> Here's a more controversial idea: perhaps some
> information relating to deletion of pages and
> banning of users
> should be hidden from non-sysops.  For example,
> since "delete" can only be done by sysops, why not
> just tell
> non-sysops that a deletion occurred, but not WHICH
> sysop did it?
> By the same token, perhaps some discussion areas
> should be
> only readable/writeable by sysops, in particular a
> discussion
> area to discuss banning someone.  Perhaps there
> could be a way
> where anyone (non-sysop) could suggest that someone
> be banned,
> without having their name revealed to non-sysops.
> Since real deletes and banning can only be done by
> sysops anyway,
> and sysops are trusted, there's no reason this
> information
> MUST be public.
>
> A related idea might be to modify the "talk" system
> so that it's
> more like a bulletin board, with threaded messages
> and
> a clear identification of who made it (click on
> "reply" to reply
> to that item, maybe in a threaded way). That way,
> any message is
> clearly
> identified with its REAL author.  A side-effect
> would be that
> the attribution would happen automatically (no more
> forgetting ~~~~).  That way, when people discuss
> things, they
> can't make it appear that someone else made an
> outrageous/nasty
> statement.
>
> The goal here would be to prevent people from
> attacking each other,
> or at least limit its effectiveness.
>
> Thoughts?

Yes.

I have three other suggestions.

Why not also just hiding deletion log to non-sysops
people?

After all, all they can do is look at the log. Not
look at the deleted pages, not even really get a sysop
to tell them what is in them. So does it have any
interest that they can see which pages were deleted at
all ? Perhaps, they don't need to know about it ?

Similarly, what about hiding the list of blocked users
from non-sysops users ? After all, since they can do
nothing to unban them, and since you suggest making it
impossible for them to participate in banning
discussion, perhaps does it have no sense for them
knowing about banning at all ?

Another suggestion : why not making the whole
wikipedia read only for non-sysop users ?

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


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Countering the vandals who attack users (not just
 pages)

body:
On Thu, 22 May 2003, Anthere wrote:
> Another suggestion : why not making the whole
> wikipedia read only for non-sysop users ?

Careful there. Remember we Americans are notoriously bad at recognizing
sarcasm. :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


body:
--- Brion Vibber <vibber at aludra.usc.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 May 2003, Anthere wrote:
> > Another suggestion : why not making the whole
> > wikipedia read only for non-sysop users ?
>
> Careful there. Remember we Americans are notoriously
> bad at recognizing
> sarcasm. :)
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

I trust canadians to remind americans if necessary :-)

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] No-FX

body:
Given No-FX's most recent vandalization of Zoe's user-page, I believe
he/she/it should be banned.  I guess this should be discussed for a while,
but I vote for banning as soon as possible.
Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Assistant Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
-------------- next part --------------

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.478 / Virus Database: 275 - Release Date: 5/6/2003


subject: [WikiEN-l] NO-FX ban

body:
Don't throw around the term 'mental problems'; my
little brother is autistic.

Erik, it takes no work to type in 'a' for each
criterion when signing up for yahoo or hotmail.

Erik said:

Brion-
> Stop giving him the satisfaction of making a big
fuss. Just revert
crap
> that's crap, and work with stuff that's good (should
there be any).
What
> more do we need?

First: Lee has banned No-Fx, so this will only be
applicable to the
next
incarnation, should there be any.

Neither option is very appealing. Michael seems to be
a person with
mental
problems, and I doubt he much cares about the
existence of other users
on
Wikipedia at all. He considers it his playground, or
maybe an
information
storage system. Those who try to talk to him are
insulted.

Furthermore, it is not easy to determine which of the
information he
inserts is actual junk. For example, a couple of days
ago I noticed
that
he had changed one on the articles on my watchlist and
modified the
release date of an album. I checked the date from
multiple sources, and
the old one was correct. I do not know where he gets
his information
from,
but much of it is quite obviously incorrect.  Add to
this the personal
insult to people like Zoe, on whose user page he put
the text "I like
oral
sex" and pasted the whole oral sex article.

Just reverting everything he writes may be an
acceptable solution for
the
time being, but it's also considerable work, and
needlessly spams the
server. Every couple of days some newbie will ask why
we do it because
his
edits seem to be acceptable. I would really like to
see these matters
resolved more quickly and concentrate on writing an
encyclopedia.
Otherwise I fear at some point we might have 10 or 20
users like him at
our hands in the future.

There may be the option of threatening legal action,
but if Michael is
as
stubborn as I think, that will also not really deter
him.

>> I should point out that the problem of users
appearing under dozens
of
>> names would probably go away if we required an
email confirmation
during
>> signup, although that might deter some users from
creating an
account.

> You have heard of hotmail and yahoo, right? :)

True, but signing up for a new account takes time --
all these email
account providers ask plenty of questions. He may go
through it a
couple
of times, but unless he is a script kiddie, he'll
probably get tired of
it
soon enough.

Regards,

Erik

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


body:
On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 16:38, Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> > (The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com>):
> >
> > Yes there are: try child prOn, indecency and obscenity laws.
>
> Those are not restrictions on "nudity". Nude pictures of children
> are perfectly legal in the US, as long as they're not engaged in
> sexual acts or otherwise presented as erotic. And even some that
> are clearly erotic are acceptable in some circumstances ("Pretty
> Baby" and "American Beauty" come to mind).

Yep, there are no restrictions on nude pictures unless someone doesn't
like them--or does like them. Also, while there's no federal statute on
public nudity, there are plenty of local restrictions and no
Constitutional protection.

C.f. Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 639-43 (1968), Osborne v. Ohio,
495 U.S.103, 111 (1990), Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, 18
U.S.C. ? 2252A. But hey, this is all being hammered out by the courts.

> > But this isn't a disgreement about facts, just which facts are
> > important. I should have said "I think it's grossly misleading".
>
> Agreed. I just thought it a bit unfair to demonize the MPAA when
> for the most part it is the American public itself that's the
> problem.  Our prudery is not a case of an authoritarian minority
> oppressing the freedom-loving masses; it's a case of the
> authoritarian masses oppressing the freedom-loving minority.
> It is not a failure of democracy, but a natural negative
> consequence of it.

That's one reading of the situation. Mine is that both the authoritarian
minority and authoritarian masses are to blame.


from_name: Toby Bartels

subject: [Wikitech-l] English usage note (Was: Bad status)

body:
Alvaro wrote in part:

>Merci d'avance ( thanks in advance ? )

Yes, "thanks in advance" is good English.

-- Toby


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

body:
Sean Barrett wrote:

>My servers are named Orwen, Orgoch, and Orddu.  For two Wikicents, who
>did I lift the names from?  No fair googling.

These are the Fates in ancient Wales.
They may be found today in Lloyd Alexander's Prydain Chronicles
(but he didn't invent them).

-- Toby


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin nominations

body:
--- Anthere <anthere6 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Nod.
> Recently, many people were proposed to be sysops.
> They
> were mostly sold the "trust" display, rather than
> what
> syosp really is (a police force). The more sysops
> there are, the less trust will be granted to non
> sysops, imho.
>
> This said, I deeply thank those who have expressed
> their trust in me :-)

I guess a sysop is more like a judge. I don't think it
is fair to say that sysops are a police force. Being a
policeman (or woman) implies doing something
compulsively, without consent, as opposed to someone
more like a judge, who consents all involved parties
as well as the rules/laws, the previous precedents,
and the jury (in this case the Wikipedia community). A
judge isn't required to give punishment. If he wants,
he can assign guilt without punishment, or even say
the defendant is completely innocent of any crime and
ignore the case. This is often frowned upon by the
people in the jurisdiction, so there are retrials
(except without the technicality that a procedural
error must have been committed; that can be found in
almost every case). Some may say that it is the
judge's responsibility to punish people in all cases
without consent or explicit reason, as the policemen
(agressive sysops) try to do, but the judges know that
they are better than that. They are not just here to
punish, they are here to judge.

That metaphor was a little off what I originally meant
to say, but now it is my new philosophy because I like
the metaphor so much :-)
--LittleDan

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


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

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

>I should point out that the way our DNS is set up, *every* possible
>subdomain exists, should one look for it:

>$ host webster.wikipedia.org
>webster.wikipedia.org has address 130.94.122.197
>$ host encarta.wikipedia.org
>encarta.wikipedia.org has address 130.94.122.197
>$ host groliers.wikipedia.org
>groliers.wikipedia.org has address 130.94.122.197
>$ host goatse.cx.wikipedia.org
>goatse.cx.wikipedia.org has address 130.94.122.197
>$ host akfljsdiovw.wikipedia.org
>akfljsdiovw.wikipedia.org has address 130.94.122.197

So am I correct to think that nobody will ever *run*across*
<larousse.wikipedia.org> -- that is, they'll never find it
without typing in "larousse" at some point themselves?

-- Toby


subject: [WikiEN-l] NO-FX ban

body:
--- Brion Vibber <vibber at aludra.usc.edu> wrote:
> Oh, sure; indeed I have made bans where it seemed
> appropriate. A visit to
> [[Special:Ipblocks]] will show that. But repeatedly
> "banning" the same
> person over and over, when proven ineffective with
> that person, is rather
> pointless. The social effects of the ban haven't
> discouraged the person
> (indeed, perhaps encouraged them), and they've found
> a way around the very
> simple technical effects of the ban.
>
> Obviously a change in strategy is required if we
> want to do anything
> other than re-ban Lir and Michael all day long. To
> continue to use the
> same strategy that we *know* is ineffective is
> neurotic.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

I agree, but what do you propose?
--LittleDan

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] NO-FX ban

body:
--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> No-Fx has vandalized Zoe's user page. He appears to
> be yet another
> reincarnation of the banned user Michael, working on
> the same articles in
> the same style and not responding to messages.
>
> So, should we ban him? He will probably just
> reappear under a new name,
> but if we do this often enough, he might be
> deterred.
>
> I should point out that the problem of users
> appearing under dozens of
> names would probably go away if we required an email
> confirmation during
> signup, although that might deter some users from
> creating an account.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik

email confirmation is completely ineffective, not to
mention intrusive.
--LittleDan

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


subject: [Wikipedia-l] MPAA ratings (Was: Two issues here: what is legal to have on the server and what is legal in the user's nation)

body:
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:

>The Cunctator wrote:

>>While technically true, that's grossly misleading. There are few
>>legal restrictions on nudity in the movies, but there are draconian
>>quasi-legal industry restrictions.

>>Instead of "the American market is such that too much explicit sex will
>>actually hurt the mass-market value of a movie" the more accurate
>>portrayal is

>>Any explicit sex will prevent a movie from being shown in any mainstream
>>theater, with few exceptions.

>>The MPAA decides the moral code for acceptable movies with an iron fist,
>>often demanding changes to the movie for it to get a "non-adult" rating.

>>Any movie they deem to be NC-17 has no financial future in U.S. movie
>>theaters.

>Cunc is the one misrepresenting the facts here: there are /no/
>legal restrictions on nudity in movies of any kind, period.

Assuming that TC wrote "few" instead of "no" just to cover his ass
in case any restrictions did exist, this is not a misrepresentation by him.
His point is that quasi-legal restrictions do exist --
even if there are few (or no) truly legal ones.
(We examine this claim below.)

>Yes, the
>MPAA rules with "an iron fist", but it is precisely because that's
>the way the American public wants it.

Which American public?  The teenagers that want to see an "R" film but can't?
No, only those segments of the American public with the quasi-legal ability
to force the movie industry to their way of thinking.
To wit, those segments that were able to get *Congress* interested,
forcing the MPAA to adopt its quasi-legal rules
in order to avoid the imposition of truly legal rules from above.
They are indeed forcing their puritan views on the rest of us,
in a quasi-legal fashion (big industry guns).
The ratings were *not* the result of an outcry by the *public*,
nor were the specific restrictions on age associated with them.

>He may not like the fact that
>most Americans want it that way, but the fact remains that they do.

Well, most laws, like most quasi-legal means of enforcement,
have respect by a significant chunk of the population.
I don't know if it's a majority here or not, but that's irrelevant.

>There have certainly been protests of the MPAA (and I personally
>consider Jack Valenti to be the Antichrist, for many reasons), but
>those protests have been from a small minority of folks like us, not
>from the people as a whole, who still overwhelmingly support them.
>You can't blame the failure of adult-only movies on anything but
>good old American prudery.

Certainly.  Good old American prudery that in this case
is being enforced by quasi-legal means through the MPAA.
Where is the misrepresentation in Cunc's post?

Let's be more specific.
TC was responding to a claim that market share for nudity is bad
because people will *choose* not to see a movie with nudity.
This is entirely false -- *lot* of people want to see nudity.
If they could see it in a mainstream (not porn) theatre, then they would.
But they can't -- that's the quasi-legal rule enforced *on* them.
That this rule has widespread public support is not the issue;
the fact remains that plenty of people would view the movies if they could.
The loss of marketability is entirely the fault of the ratings system,
which is a quasi-legal enforcement mechanism, however widely supported.

-- Toby


body:
--- The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com> wrote:
> Yes, it would. Gotta love that passive voice: "the
> [[communist state]]
> article was intended..." By whom, I wonder.
>
> Moreover, if you read the content of the [[communist
> state]] entry, it's
> evident that it's not just about theory.

I'm just repeating what was said previously on this list.

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


body:
> Attacks on users and sysops - particularly highly dedicated ones -
> are much more dangerous to the Wikipedia than
> simple attacks on a few pages.  If these kinds of attacks cause
> people to stop weeding out bad pages or vandals for
> fear of retribution, the project is doomed.
> ...
> At the least, why not let the User:NAME pages be ONLY editable
> by NAME?

As with many features, removing the possibility of abuse would
also hamper our ability to detect it. If the software were as you
suggest above, for example, Mr. No-Fx would not have been able to
to demonstrate to us that he is so clearly outside the realm of
rational adult behavior that we can summarily block him with clear
conscience and no further ado.

The net has a long and glorious tradition that anyone who does
anything useful will be attacked unmercifully. Most of us get used
to it and get on with the job. Was Zoe frustrated because she couldn't
block the idiot, or for some other reason? I can't imagine that she
would be so dismayed merely by the opinion of someone whose opinions
clearly aren't worthy of any respect or notice.

> Here's a more controversial idea: perhaps some
> information relating to deletion of pages and banning of users
> should be hidden from non-sysops.  For example,
> since "delete" can only be done by sysops, why not just tell
> non-sysops that a deletion occurred, but not WHICH sysop did it?

I much prefer the combination of freedom and accountability: let
lots of people take appropriate action, but track what they do so
it can be fixed or discussed after the fact if necessary. That's
usually a powerful system with good, stable, negative feedback.

> By the same token, perhaps some discussion areas should be
> only readable/writeable by sysops, in particular a discussion
> area to discuss banning someone.  Perhaps there could be a way
> where anyone (non-sysop) could suggest that someone be banned,
> without having their name revealed to non-sysops.
> Since real deletes and banning can only be done by sysops anyway,
> and sysops are trusted, there's no reason this information
> MUST be public.

But I really don't see any reason to hide it either. Sysops are
trusted. If a Sysop blocks someone, we have a public record that
someone we trust has made a specific judgment about an action he
or she felt necessary, and unless extraordinary cirsumstances
come to light that it may have been a particularly bad judgment,
that really should end the matter. Sure, people may complain,
but let them. Just because an action is unpopular that doesn't
mean we can't stand up for it and take responsibility.

--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee at piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC


body:
Jimmy Wales wrote in part:

>I *very strongly* supported the liberation of Iraq

Well, who wouldn't?  I've always supported liberation in every country.
Nevertheless, I *very strongly* opposed the recent naked agression
towards Iraq by the United States military.  ^_^

-- Toby


from_name: John R. Owens

body:
On Wed, 21 May 2003, Geoff Burling wrote:

> Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 19:56:12 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] The Wiki Search Function Now Works!
>
> The subject line of my email says it all. Yay!
>
> Who wants to take credit for restoring this valuable feature? I
> have WikiLovePoints (or whatever they're called) I'd like to shower
> on the person responsible.
>
> It's not like anyone is trying to earn them by contributing to the Latin
> Wiki.

I'd be much more willing to if it had the software update already. :p

--
John R. Owens http://www.ghiapet.homeip.net/
The Babylon Project was our last, best hope for peace.  It failed.  But
in the year of the Shadow War, it became something greater: our last,
best hope for victory.  The year is 2260.  The place--Babylon 5.
				--Commander Susan Ivanova


body:
> Je ??a??do 22 Majo 2003 10:55, Daniel Ehrenberg
> skribis
Brion, the Esperanto reply heading you use didn't
render properly on my computer. Are you using the
x-system or something else?
--LittleDan

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin nominations

body:
Anth?re (but forced to be only "Anthere" on [[fr:]]) wrote in part:

>Recently, many people were proposed to be sysops. They
>were mostly sold the "trust" display, rather than what
>syosp really is (a police force). The more sysops
>there are, the less trust will be granted to non
>sysops, imho.

Why do you think that sysops really are a police force?
What do I, as a sysop on [[en:]], do that makes me a police officer?
If you equate sysops with police, perhaps the real problem
is that sysophood isn't being implemented correctly on [[fr:]].

--- Toby


body:
David A. Wheeler wrote in part:

>At the least, why not let the User:NAME pages be ONLY editable
>by NAME?  The "User_talk:" spaces need to be editable in some way,
>but I don't see a need for others to "fix" the User: space of someone;
>it's not critical that that content be fixed, and there's advantanges
>to having some areas that are "precious" to each user.

Your other suggestions were against Wikipedia's openness,
and I'm happy to be confident that they will never happen.
But I do think that read-only user pages *as*an*option*
would be a useful idea.  There have been other problems before.

-- Toby


subject: [WikiEN-l] Back to the source no NPOV

body:
--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
> I should make clear here, for my own personal
> philosophical reasons,
> that I'm not at all a fan of any theory which
> defines truth or
> knowledge as somehow "socially constructed".  I'm a
> believer in the
> correspondence theory of truth, the validity of the
> senses, the
> efficacy of reason, the methods of objectivity.
> What's true is true,
> and humans are capable of finding and knowing the
> truth.
>
> That doesn't mean, though, that they can all agree
> on what is True,
> nor does it mean that a social process for
> collaborative writing can't
> justifiably rely on a socially-driven standard.
>
> --Jimbo

I don't believe in an absolute truth that humans are
capable of finding. I think that there is an absolute
truth, along with an ideal and correct philosophy that
would make everythin better, out there somewhere, but
humans will never find it. We'll always be in a futile
search for the truth, approching, but not reaching it.
I believe something in between socially constructed
reality (although I do acknowledge its existence) and
your philosophy apply to wikipedia. We're definately
better than a religion (although neither I nor anyone
here can judge of that, as we are part of this, if it
is a socially constructed reality), but not perfect
and never will be.
--LittleDan

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


body:
--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
> Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
> > The [[communist state]] article was intended for
> the
> > discussion of how the communist system was
> *supposed
> > to * work. If you are writing about how it
> actually
> > works in real life, you should write at
> [[communist
> > government]].
>
> Then neither of those titles is very good, as they
> don't adequately
> summarize the intention of the page, right?
>
> --Jimbo

Yeah, but that's just what I was told.

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