subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
On 7/19/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Let me give you an example. If I were writing an article on a drug and
> I included the sentence "tyrosine is an amino acid", I would be
> expressing a relation that is learnt in secondary education. It being
> an amino acid is the first thing anyone would learn about tyrosine. Is
> this reference worthy?
>
> > There is no such thing as over-referencing. There is no such thing as
> > "common knowledge" regarding encyclopedic content. If it feels "common
> > knowledge", it may be lacking relevancy at least in a certain context.
> >
> > Mathias
>
> --
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
> _______________________________________________

A counter example. I recently requested a source on the fact that a person
(living person) is blind. (Not Stevie Wonder). But it was deemed so obvious
that it was ixnayed. Correct or wrong? My sentiment is that even if it is so
obvious, why not source it anyway.

To Oldak Quill, please don't top-post.

Garion


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Oldak Quill

subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On 19/07/06, Michael Hopcroft <michael at mphpress.com> wrote:
> You know, I haven't really seen a good working definition of the term
> "fancruft", yet I seem to have run afoul of the concept more often than
> I have failed to. Mind you, the areas of my expertise (animation and
> RPGs) are especially vulnerable to such claims, but I seem to be running
> into it far more often than most other editors.
>
> I would say that I have an objection to some of the ways the policy has
> been applied, particularly to my own articles, but since I do not know
> what the policy actually entails (all things considered) it is difficult
> for me to form a rational response or objection to the times when I feel
> it is applied unfairly or unwisely.
>
> Could someone give me a non-judgmental (because it usually seems to be
> applied to content that those who cite find objectionable for other
> reasons, as in the case of the possibly offensive Archbishop Tutu joke
> that Mr. wales cites) explanation of just what the term 'fancruft" means
> and entails as a matter of Wikipedia policy?  (The apparently
> contemptuous nature of the term 'fancruft" itself also sticks in my craw
> as inherently judgmental, but that is neither here nor there.)
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Fancruft is the overdocumentation of certain fields of entertainment.
Jimbo's extract is a good example of bad fancruft - inserting niche
information into an article which won't benefit the reader.

Sadly, the word "fancruft" is too often levelled at anything the
accuser doesn't like him/herself. In this case it is a form of
elitism; the accuser claims that the articles a particular user is
trying to write are somehow not worthy enough simply due to their
subject matter. All you need to do is cite "Wikipedia is not paper".

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Mathias Schindler

subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
On 7/19/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> Let me give you an example. If I were writing an article on a drug and
> I included the sentence "tyrosine is an amino acid", I would be
> expressing a relation that is learnt in secondary education. It being
> an amino acid is the first thing anyone would learn about tyrosine. Is
> this reference worthy?

Have a look at [[Tyrosine]]. The sentence in question reads:

"Tyrosine (from the Greek tyros, meaning cheese, as it was first
discovered in cheese), 4-hydroxyphenylalanine, or
2-amino-3(4-hydroxyphenyl)-propanoic acid, is one of the 20 amino
acids that are used by cells to synthesize proteins. "

While the factoid (the usual connotation is different but I like this
word in the sense as the smallest information unit) tyrosine=amino
acid is something a secondary school pupil in the industrialized world
has learnt (that leaves about 4.5 billion people), the context itself
is something that could live with a reference.

In this case, you can watch for redundancy: There are wikilinks to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_%28biology%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_biosynthesis and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein

If these articles (especially the Amino acid one) is already heavily
referenced, you feel a little more relaxed. Otherwise: Find a suitable
reference that serves to provice information to any of the factoids
(see above) in that sentence.

Mathias


subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
On 7/19/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:

> Actually there are times when leaving something as "common knowledge" is
> better than providing a source.  Recently there was a discussion at
> [[Evolution]] about a statement to the effect that evolution was considered
> to be responsible for the vast diversity of living things and whether to
> source that statement.

A strong reference policy does not invalidate the hints to avoid weaseling.

Mathias


list: foundation-l

from_name: mboverload

subject: [Foundation-l] Update on ombudsman issue

body:
Or we could just use [[WP:NOTTHATUSER]]

=D

On 7/19/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/19/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > So that it is clear that discussions do not always get buried and
> > forgotten :-)
> >
> > Some time ago, we discussed the possibility to create an ombudsman
> > commission to deal with complaints related to abuse of the Foundation
> > privacy policy, associated to checkuser activity or not.
> >
> > A resolution(*) has been written to describe the role of the commission
> > and the extent of its delegation. 3 members have been proposed.
> >
>
> So is it now time to froce a name change on user:ombudsman?
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Nathan

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia e-mail

body:
I was thinking of adding this to WP:RFCU, actually...

- Nathan

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006, Scott Stevenson wrote:

> Given the apparent linguistic challenges that [[User:Rptng03509345]]
> demonstrates and the striking similiarity to [[User:Hardvice]]'s text and
> commentaries surrounding this issue... I'd be rather sure that checkuser'd
> turn up that they're one and the same. The other likely candidate would be
> [[User:Rootology]] but his linguistic skills don't match up as well as
> [[User:Hardvice]].
>
> -Scott
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Theresa Knott

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia e-mail

body:
On 7/19/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> Wasn't this discussed in WP:ANI?

I believe we are being trolled.  I have no intention of given them the
time of day.

Theresa


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
Trivia sections must die, in all articles, period. If you see one, do
Wikipedia a favor and move it to the talk page (or remove it
entirely).

Erik


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia e-mail

body:
Wasn't this discussed in WP:ANI?
I think it was something of a frivolous nomination, but I can't remember.
Anyway, if they have a problem with it, they should've sent it to either the
admin in question, or to the list. Mailing admins, who have nothing to do
with it, personally looks like you've got something to hide and it is spam
to boot.

Mgm

On 7/19/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/19/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
> > Did you check any? I saw a little incivility, but that's it.
> > -kc-
>
> Yeah, actually I checked them all except for the ones to ED (not
> really our domain, ya think?).  Incivility and personal attacks aside,
> I didn't see any actual ADMIN abuse.
>
> But really, I wish all complaints came with the documentation that one
> did.  It _does_ help see where actual errors occured.  --LV
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On 7/19/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Fancruft is the overdocumentation of certain fields of entertainment.
> Jimbo's extract is a good example of bad fancruft - inserting niche
> information into an article which won't benefit the reader.
>
> Sadly, the word "fancruft" is too often levelled at anything the
> accuser doesn't like him/herself. In this case it is a form of
> elitism; the accuser claims that the articles a particular user is
> trying to write are somehow not worthy enough simply due to their
> subject matter. All you need to do is cite "Wikipedia is not paper".

I actually cringed when Jimbo used the word fancruft because of this very
reason. Him using the word, will give Pokemon/Simpsons/SpongeBob hating
editors yet other ammo to claim anything related to them is fancruft. Don't
have the word fancruft around. Be specific and set your own ego aside. If I
didn't I wouldn't have saved multiple Pokemon articles from doom. I despise
them, but that gives me no right submitting them for deletion.

What I would like to see is mention that Tutu being named in friends is not
sufficiently useful to be included in the article. Now if he actually
appeared in the episode...

Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is forever.

body:
>Wiki does a lot in facilitating our activity, but
>to suggest that Britannica would have had an increased lifetime merely
>by adopting Wiki technology is somewhat laughable.

I was making the assumption (an assumption which I maintain isn't
invalid) that having put the Wiki infrastructure in place, and having
done a little advertising, the project would have been successful. I
don't think Wikipedia was successful because it grew from the FLOSS
community. It was successful because anyone could edit it (you could
argue that this was entirely because Wikipeida grew out of the FLOSS
community). Britannica could have been just as successful if they had
allowed anyone to edit.

> Because of the poor resource availability to cost ratio our project is
> sorely lacking alternative solutions on the development side. This
> results in an inability to produce a 'survival of the fittest'
> environment for software features. I am concerned that this is a
> significant risk.

We do, in fact, have quite a powerful development environment. The
"open-sourceness"of our software allows for interesting twists and
turns in MediaWiki. Others can develop MediaWiki in a ways that we
don't have time and resources for. As an example of this, just take a
look at the development of Semantic MediaWiki on Sourceforge. This
development takes nothing from Wikimedia resources but potentially
benefits us on a grand scale. This is facilitated by our commitment to
free software - the ability of others to reuse our work and create
better things with it

I think we *do* have a "survival of the fittest" development method.
Apart from the aforementioned "open-sourceness" of our software,
members of the community (who aren't developers) spend their own time
developing certain features and additions in the form of bots and
tools on toolserver. These features are then put through rigorous
practical tests (bots function on Wikipedia, proving their worth and
exposing their mistakes). If one of these features proves to be
wonderfully useful, it is assimilated into MediaWiki proper.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


list: wikitech-l

from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-07-20

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

Running test Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)... FAILED!
Running test Template with thumb image (wiht link in description)... FAILED!
Running test message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test Language converter: output gets cut off unexpectedly (bug 5757)... FAILED!
Running test HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test Parsing optional HTML elements (Bug 6171)... FAILED!
Running test Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting... FAILED!
Running test Mixing markup for italics and bold... FAILED!
Running test 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line... FAILED!
Running test HTML Hex character encoding.... FAILED!
Running test dt/dd/dl test... FAILED!

Passed 409 of 426 tests (96.01%) FAILED!


from_name: ScottL

subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
Mathias Schindler wrote:
> On 7/19/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Let me give you an example. If I were writing an article on a drug and
>> I included the sentence "tyrosine is an amino acid", I would be
>> expressing a relation that is learnt in secondary education. It being
>> an amino acid is the first thing anyone would learn about tyrosine. Is
>> this reference worthy?
>
> Have a look at [[Tyrosine]]. The sentence in question reads:
>
> "Tyrosine (from the Greek tyros, meaning cheese, as it was first
> discovered in cheese), 4-hydroxyphenylalanine, or
> 2-amino-3(4-hydroxyphenyl)-propanoic acid, is one of the 20 amino
> acids that are used by cells to synthesize proteins. "
>
> While the factoid (the usual connotation is different but I like this
> word in the sense as the smallest information unit) tyrosine=amino
> acid is something a secondary school pupil in the industrialized world
> has learnt (that leaves about 4.5 billion people), the context itself
> is something that could live with a reference.
>
> In this case, you can watch for redundancy: There are wikilinks to
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_%28biology%29
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_biosynthesis and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein
>
> If these articles (especially the Amino acid one) is already heavily
> referenced, you feel a little more relaxed. Otherwise: Find a suitable
> reference that serves to provice information to any of the factoids
> (see above) in that sentence.
>
> Mathias

   I don't know.  I think we can go too far in referencing every fact in
an article.  Do you need a verifiable reference to say that Harry potter
and the Half blood prince is a work of fiction?  I mean if that is the
standard then every article on wikipedia needs {{fact}} plastered all
over it.

Dalf


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> I only wish we had something better than the revoltingly ugly
> reference mechanism we have at present ("ref" tags), which required
> the editor to place all kinds of obstrusive metadata into the body of
> an article when he really wants it to appear at the end.  This makes
> the text of the article very difficult to read and edit.

I'm exactly the opposite. I love having a system whereby I can put
metadata right in the exact same place in the article's source as the
data that it's referencing. I very rarely did detailed referencing of my
work before this system came along, usually just tossing an external
link to the source I was working from in "external links" (in those rare
cases where I was working with offline sources I might not even do that
since a book reference isn't an "external link"). It's super-easy to put
in detailed inline references now, though, even to non-Internet sources.

What would be nice is to have an editor a little fancier than a plain
old text box, though. Simply having different colors for the different
types of text (reference, header, link, image, etc) would make the
source way easier to read. No idea how to go about crafting such a
thing, though.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060720/2bb73d0c/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
jayjg wrote:
> On 7/19/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/19/06, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> There is no such thing as over-referencing. There is no such thing as
>>> "common knowledge" regarding encyclopedic content. If it feels "common
>>> knowledge", it may be lacking relevancy at least in a certain context.
>>
>> Actually there are times when leaving something as "common knowledge" is
>> better than providing a source.  Recently there was a discussion at
>> [[Evolution]] about a statement to the effect that evolution was considered
>> to be responsible for the vast diversity of living things and whether to
>> source that statement.  It's very easy to find someone who has said that,
>> but to source it to anyone in particular could be misleading because it
>> implies that there is some special relationship between the idea and the
>> source.  If something is common knowledge it should only be sourced if the
>> sourcing helps to establist the origin or development of the idea.  Just
>> sticking in a source at random can be misleading.
>
> I think a better idea might be to make the general statement, but
> source it to multiple sources. If it's common knowledge then there
> will be plenty of sources saying the same thing; once you have enough
> reliable sources repeating a claim, you can simply state it generally.
>
> Jay.

   I have a question about all of this.  What about a case when you are
claiming something relatively complex about something related to the
current article but not the primary subject of that article, and you
have wikilinked to the term.  If the claim (or series of related claims)
are explained and referenced at the article on that topic do you need to
reference them again?  If an interested reader can still find the
references by following the link do they need to be reproduced locally?

Dalf


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> Trivia sections must die, in all articles, period. If you see one, do
> Wikipedia a favor and move it to the talk page (or remove it
> entirely).
>
> Erik

   My impression of the trivia sections is that they serve a very
important purpose.  They are the compromise that keeps the trivia out of
the rest of the article.  Now I am not saying I like them, but if you
remove them then the contents of the section will work its way back into
the article.  It will be spread out where readers will find it and it
will reflect poorly on us.  Now if its keep in a trivia section the blow
to our image is less or possibly totally mitigated, and I admit
sometimes I am in the mood for a bit of trivia.

Dalf


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 7/20/06, ScottL <scott at mu.org> wrote:
>>   My impression of the trivia sections is that they serve a very
>> important purpose.  They are the compromise that keeps the trivia out of
>> the rest of the article.  Now I am not saying I like them, but if you
>> remove them then the contents of the section will work its way back into
>> the article.  It will be spread out where readers will find it and it
>> will reflect poorly on us.  Now if its keep in a trivia section the blow
>> to our image is less or possibly totally mitigated, and I admit
>> sometimes I am in the mood for a bit of trivia.
>
> They should be flagged with a big TRIVIA WARNING template.
>
> Steve

   Probably though most the time I see them under there own level 2 or 3
heading of Trivia.  I think an actual "OMG TRIVIA WATCH OUT!" kinda box
would disrupt the flow of the article.  Heck I don't much care for the
spoiler warning templates though obviously they are necessary.

    The best solution is to teach editors not to want to include trivia
to begin with.

SKL


subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
Mathias Schindler wrote:
> On 7/20/06, ScottL <scott at mu.org> wrote:
>
>>    I don't know.  I think we can go too far in referencing every fact in
>> an article.  Do you need a verifiable reference to say that Harry potter
>> and the Half blood prince is a work of fiction?  I mean if that is the
>> standard then every article on wikipedia needs {{fact}} plastered all
>> over it.
>
> Again, have a look at the article in question.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Half-Blood_Prince
> "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, released on July 16, 2005, is
> the sixth novel in J. K. Rowling's popular Harry Potter series. There
> are seven novels planned."
>
> At least the part about the seventh novel can and should be
> referenced. By the way, the last sentence is starting to weasel. Who
> exactly is planning: The publisher, the author, the marketing
> department?
>
> Mathias

   I'm not sure I would call that weaseling since I don't think the
person who wrote it was trying to get away with saying something they
could not prove.  We don't wasn't to over load our terms that we are
using to admonish people lets they lose their meaning.  That is simply
an example of laziness or apathy.  But i take your point.

Dalf


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is forever.

body:
> Is this so certain, though? It seems fairly clear that Britannica
> wouldn't be using copyleft licensing, but proprietary licensing of
> some sort. Speaking for myself, I know I would not be contributing to
> a proprietary EB wiki. A lot of the initial seed for Wikipedia (for
> starting the virtuous cycle/exponential growth) seems to have been
> essentially ideologically motivated, and I do not think any
> significant segments of technically literate, motivated, educated and
> willing-to-donate-their-time people would have tossed their lot in
> with an EB wiki, except perhaps some academics.

The idea that a Wikipedian's work will change and adapt--will be
immortal--is quite wonderful. The fact that they are codifying
knowledge freely so that it can be reused is  very satisfying.

I was made aware of the whole FLOSS movement because I became a
Wikipedian (I did not become a Wikipedian because I was a member of
the FLOSS community). Again, I expect this is the case with most
users. I was initially attracted by the freedom to edit and the
projects ability to grow (reuse of our work by others as a result of
free licensing is an extension of this). I can't say whether I'd still
be editing if this were a proprietary project, probably not (I now
strongly believe in FLOSS principles and can't envisage giving my free
time to something proprietary, so I may be biased). As for those who
are less philosophical, I think there would be enough of them to have
made a proprietary Wikipedia successful (in the absence of a free
alternative, which would be more attractive to most).

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Quackpotwatch AfD

body:
> My reason for asking here is that I have an article featured on
> Quackwatch.com (which I have noted for a long time on my user page). I
> don't want it to seem like my reasons are solely because I disagree
> with Quackpotwatch. It just doesn't seem notable or reliable
> regardless of my POV, and I can't find any published sources that cite
> it. The only citations are other websites that dislike Quackwatch.

You should be disclosing this kind of stuff on the actual AfD page,
not here. It is relevant to the AfD, and not relevant outside the
context of the AfD. Why did you want us (and not the voters) to know?

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Jeffrey V. Merkey

subject: [Foundation-l] Native Cherokee XML Dumps for enwiki-20060717 posted

body:
Trnslation dumps posted for enwiki-20060717:

www.wikigadugi.org

ftp.wkigadugi.org/wiki/xml

Jeff


subject:
[Foundation-l] Native Cherokee XML Dumps for enwiki-20060717
 posted

body:
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:

>Trnslation dumps posted for enwiki-20060717:
>
>www.wikigadugi.org
>
>ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki/xml
>
>
misspelled it again. :-)

Jeff

>Jeff
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>


from_name: N/A N/A

subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources (first message)

body:
>I've asked a few times, but I'll do so again, more bluntly: How do you
>intend to encourage this, beyond occasional rants to this mailing
>list? Are we authorised to make big changes to WP:V and claim that
>Jimbo said it was ok? How far are we going with this? Is it just a
>cultural change, or policy change?

>Steve

First mailing here, not sure I have the formatting in accordance with the
norm, but hopefully it will suffice.

I would like to know the answer to this as well. The amazing ambivalence
towards uncited information in articles, even those where the lack of
citation puts the article into significant NPOV violation, is appalling. If
we could require sources on any significant addition, especially to
controversial articles, it would solve some of the content and NPOV disputes
in serious articles. It would also be of benefit in our fandom driven
articles, as stricter sourcing rules would be enable us to slash out
speculative "information" without hesitation.

I recently added a note on the Template:Fact page cautioning about its use
on biography pages, based on a message Jimbo posted here on the 12th, but
considering the way people ignored the previous caution on using it on info
that appeared false, I don't expect it to have much of an impact.

--tjstrf

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/


from_name: Scott Stevenson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia e-mail

body:
Given the apparent linguistic challenges that [[User:Rptng03509345]]
demonstrates and the striking similiarity to [[User:Hardvice]]'s text and
commentaries surrounding this issue... I'd be rather sure that checkuser'd
turn up that they're one and the same. The other likely candidate would be
[[User:Rootology]] but his linguistic skills don't match up as well as
[[User:Hardvice]].

-Scott


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia e-mail

body:
Well not sure if the RFCU folks would take this on... it might be too much
like "fishing". I suppose an ArbCom member could check... or make a proper
request.

-Scott


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia e-mail

body:
These diffs show this person is the same:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FEncyclop
?dia_Dramatica_%283rd_nomination%29&diff=64782525&oldid=64781566

Same pattern of baseless allegations, same pattern of writing, same
everything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FEncyclop
?dia_Dramatica_%283rd_nomination%29&diff=64783625&oldid=64783417

-Scott


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On 7/19/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 7/19/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> > I quote our article:
> > >In the Friends episode The One With the Two Parties RACHEL is quoted as
> > >saying "My parents happened. All they had to do was sit in the same
> > >stadium, smile proudly, and not talk about the divorce. But nooo, they
> > >got into a huge fight in the middle of the commencement address. Bishop
> > >Tutu actually had to stop and shush them."
> >
> > I think that's one of the worst examples of fancruft I have seen in a
> > very long time.  (And, I note, there is no source. :))
> >
> > --Jimbo
>
> The source is right there: "the Friends episode The One With the Two Parties".
>

Funny.  But it has no more place on an article about Desmond Tutu than
an episode of Bewitched has on the Benjamin Franklin article.


subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
On 7/19/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> Let me give you an example. If I were writing an article on a drug and
> I included the sentence "tyrosine is an amino acid", I would be
> expressing a relation that is learnt in secondary education. It being
> an amino acid is the first thing anyone would learn about tyrosine. Is
> this reference worthy?

No.  Referencing is good, but the current campaign to reference
everything (which comes from good motives) has led to the removal of
common knowledge from articles simply because "if we leave this in
then someone will come and put a bit of made-up nonsense in and claim
he doesn't have to reference it."

The solution to this is obvious: don't remove something you *know* to
be true.  If it really isn't common knowledge, somebody will.

When it comes to biographical articles, however, and particularly
those about living people, everything should be referenced.

I only wish we had something better than the revoltingly ugly
reference mechanism we have at present ("ref" tags), which required
the editor to place all kinds of obstrusive metadata into the body of
an article when he really wants it to appear at the end.  This makes
the text of the article very difficult to read and edit.


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Quackpotwatch AfD

body:
On Jul 19, 2006, at 6:36 PM, A wrote:

> Hi-- I wonder if a few experienced folks might be willing to take a
> look at an article I nominated for deletion:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/
> Quackpotwatch
>
> It does not appear to be notable per [[WP:WEB]], and it exists solely
> as an attack site against a notable website, Quackwatch.com.
>
> My reason for asking here is that I have an article featured on
> Quackwatch.com (which I have noted for a long time on my user page). I
> don't want it to seem like my reasons are solely because I disagree
> with Quackpotwatch. It just doesn't seem notable or reliable
> regardless of my POV, and I can't find any published sources that cite
> it. The only citations are other websites that dislike Quackwatch.
>
> Thanks!
> Jokestress

Its notability derives from Quackwatch.

Fred


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] places names -- historical

body:
On Jul 20, 2006, at 1:59 AM, Yury Tarasievich wrote:

> I wonder, is there a policy on using of the places (specifically,
> cities) names, which have been (often) changed, historically? Does one
> have to use only the "actual" name? Or should it depend on context,
> possibly?

In an article regarding the Soviet Union one would usually use
Leningrad.

Fred


from_name: Keith Old

subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
On 7/20/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/19/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> > Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it
> > back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient
> > of a barnstar.
>
> And any that takes the time to do a little searching to see if they
> can provide a source themselves should get two. ;-)  --LV
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Folks,

I tried searching for Sergey Brin, Larry Page and pies. I couldn't come up
with a reliable source so it has been removed. A message has been left on
the talk page.

Regards

Keith Old


from_name: Anthony

subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On 7/20/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/19/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > On 7/19/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> > > I quote our article:
> > > >In the Friends episode The One With the Two Parties RACHEL is quoted as
> > > >saying "My parents happened. All they had to do was sit in the same
> > > >stadium, smile proudly, and not talk about the divorce. But nooo, they
> > > >got into a huge fight in the middle of the commencement address. Bishop
> > > >Tutu actually had to stop and shush them."
> > >
> > > I think that's one of the worst examples of fancruft I have seen in a
> > > very long time.  (And, I note, there is no source. :))
> > >
> > > --Jimbo
> >
> > The source is right there: "the Friends episode The One With the Two Parties".
> >
>
> Funny.  But it has no more place on an article about Desmond Tutu than
> an episode of Bewitched has on the Benjamin Franklin article.

I wasn't trying to be funny, nor was I trying to say that it belonged
in the article.

The problem isn't lack of source.  It's more one of original research.

Anthony


from_name: Puppy

subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
ScottL wrote:
> Mathias Schindler wrote:
>
>> On 7/20/06, ScottL <scott at mu.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>    I don't know.  I think we can go too far in referencing every fact in
>>> an article.  Do you need a verifiable reference to say that Harry potter
>>> and the Half blood prince is a work of fiction?  I mean if that is the
>>> standard then every article on wikipedia needs {{fact}} plastered all
>>> over it.
>>>
>> Again, have a look at the article in question.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Half-Blood_Prince
>> "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, released on July 16, 2005, is
>> the sixth novel in J. K. Rowling's popular Harry Potter series. There
>> are seven novels planned."
>>
>> At least the part about the seventh novel can and should be
>> referenced. By the way, the last sentence is starting to weasel. Who
>> exactly is planning: The publisher, the author, the marketing
>> department?
>>
>> Mathias
>>
>
>    I'm not sure I would call that weaseling since I don't think the
> person who wrote it was trying to get away with saying something they
> could not prove.  We don't wasn't to over load our terms that we are
> using to admonish people lets they lose their meaning.  That is simply
> an example of laziness or apathy.  But i take your point.
>
> Dalf
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
Its passive voice, which is not encouraged.
-kc-


subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
On 7/20/06, ScottL <scott at mu.org> wrote:
>    I don't know.  I think we can go too far in referencing every fact in
> an article.  Do you need a verifiable reference to say that Harry potter
> and the Half blood prince is a work of fiction?  I mean if that is the
> standard then every article on wikipedia needs {{fact}} plastered all
> over it.
>
IMO "obvious" facts don't need a reference tag, but they do need a
source under the ==References== heading which contains the fact.

As for use of the {{fact}} tag, maybe there are situations where a
source is needed but that tag shouldn't be used.

Anthony


from_name: Joe Anderson

subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
Isn't the word fancruft uncivil like listcruft (
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/044870.html)

On 7/20/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/19/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > On 7/19/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> > > I quote our article:
> > > >In the Friends episode The One With the Two Parties RACHEL is quoted
> as
> > > >saying "My parents happened. All they had to do was sit in the same
> > > >stadium, smile proudly, and not talk about the divorce. But nooo,
> they
> > > >got into a huge fight in the middle of the commencement address.
> Bishop
> > > >Tutu actually had to stop and shush them."
> > >
> > > I think that's one of the worst examples of fancruft I have seen in a
> > > very long time.  (And, I note, there is no source. :))
> > >
> > > --Jimbo
> >
> > The source is right there: "the Friends episode The One With the Two
> Parties".
> >
>
> Funny.  But it has no more place on an article about Desmond Tutu than
> an episode of Bewitched has on the Benjamin Franklin article.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Joe Anderson

[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.


from_name: Eric R. Meyers

subject: [Foundation-l] Please implement the [[Wikiversity:Main_Page]]

body:
Hello Wikiversity Opinion forums,

Please forgive me for showing up so very late in this very important
discussion about the Wikiversity project, just to give you my personal
opinion, but I've been very busy recovering from a very serious Central
Nervous System (CNS) disorder for the past 2-1/2 years, and I just started
getting the mental energy to put my mind and my life back together this past
spring.

I've been very impressed with everything that The Wikimedia Foundation has
been creating while I've been gone, and I consider myself very lucky to be
doing my stuff with the help of Angela and Sannse at Wikia.

I've placed an entry following Cormaggio's at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikiversity#Proposal_-_done.3F.

Please make me, and everyone else in the world who sincerely cares about
public learning and the excellent Wikiversity project, "joyful" about the
[[Wikiversity:Main_Page]] being implemented as soon as possible.

James, or Jimbo, I'd like to meet you too, someday. :)

Will someone please put this good thing on his desk today, so that he and
everyone else on the board can sign it off and get it done for the public
good.

Yes, I'm crazy. :)

Sincerely,

Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060720/fddde61a/attachment.pgp


body:
Hello Wikiversity Opinion forums,

Please forgive me for showing up so very late in this very important
discussion about the Wikiversity project, just to give you my personal
opinion, but I've been very busy recovering from a very serious Central
Nervous System (CNS) disorder for the past 2-1/2 years, and I just started
getting the mental energy to put my mind and my life back together this past
spring.

I've been very impressed with everything that The Wikimedia Foundation has
been creating while I've been gone, and I consider myself very lucky to be
doing my stuff with the help of Angela and Sannse at Wikia.

I've placed an entry following Cormaggio's at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikiversity#Proposal_-_done.3F.

Please make me, and everyone else in the world who sincerely cares about
public learning and the excellent Wikiversity project, "joyful" about the
[[Wikiversity:Main_Page]] being implemented as soon as possible.

James, or Jimbo, I'd like to meet you too, someday. :)

Will someone please put this good thing on his desk today, so that he and
everyone else on the board can sign it off and get it done for the public
good.

Yes, I'm crazy. :)

Sincerely,

Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060720/fddde61a/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
Hello Wikiversity Opinion forums,

Please forgive me for showing up so very late in this very important
discussion about the Wikiversity project, just to give you my personal
opinion, but I've been very busy recovering from a very serious Central
Nervous System (CNS) disorder for the past 2-1/2 years, and I just started
getting the mental energy to put my mind and my life back together this past
spring.

I've been very impressed with everything that The Wikimedia Foundation has
been creating while I've been gone, and I consider myself very lucky to be
doing my stuff with the help of Angela and Sannse at Wikia.

I've placed an entry following Cormaggio's at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikiversity#Proposal_-_done.3F.

Please make me, and everyone else in the world who sincerely cares about
public learning and the excellent Wikiversity project, "joyful" about the
[[Wikiversity:Main_Page]] being implemented as soon as possible.

James, or Jimbo, I'd like to meet you too, someday. :)

Will someone please put this good thing on his desk today, so that he and
everyone else on the board can sign it off and get it done for the public
good.

Yes, I'm crazy. :)

Sincerely,

Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060720/fddde61a/attachment.pgp>


body:
Hello Wikiversity Opinion forums,

Please forgive me for showing up so very late in this very important
discussion about the Wikiversity project, just to give you my personal
opinion, but I've been very busy recovering from a very serious Central
Nervous System (CNS) disorder for the past 2-1/2 years, and I just started
getting the mental energy to put my mind and my life back together this past
spring.

I've been very impressed with everything that The Wikimedia Foundation has
been creating while I've been gone, and I consider myself very lucky to be
doing my stuff with the help of Angela and Sannse at Wikia.

I've placed an entry following Cormaggio's at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikiversity#Proposal_-_done.3F.

Please make me, and everyone else in the world who sincerely cares about
public learning and the excellent Wikiversity project, "joyful" about the
[[Wikiversity:Main_Page]] being implemented as soon as possible.

James, or Jimbo, I'd like to meet you too, someday. :)

Will someone please put this good thing on his desk today, so that he and
everyone else on the board can sign it off and get it done for the public
good.

Yes, I'm crazy. :)

Sincerely,

Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060720/fddde61a/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Tech help: Video format conversion

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

I have a handful of public-domain instructional videos (moving diagrams)
that I'd like to upload, but they are in SWF format.  Can someone
contact me directly, off-list, to help me convert them to an acceptable
format?

Thanks!

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Back off, man, I'm a scientist.
 sean at epoptic.com | --Dr. Peter Venkman

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEv7HmMAt1wyd9d+URAjkPAJ43GEu8c7P9fmRA6tlvCzVzFs2z1gCeK7Pu
s5z3mmunyg/ptPeHaP1XPn8=
=oFA2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Sydney aka FloNight

subject: [WikiEN-l] Reminder about Amorrow's edits

body:
Reminder that all of banned user Andrew Morrow's new edits on all parts of Wikipedia site should be reverted and removed from view. Articles started by Amorrow after he was banned need to be deleted. Some of his edits need to be removed through oversight.

It is helpful if the editor seeing the edits reverts them. But there is not a mandate for any particular editor to make these changes. If you do not have the time or the interest in dealing with this situation, you can email me and I will take care of them.
Take care,
Sydney aka FloNight


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On 7/19/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> Trivia sections must die, in all articles, period. If you see one, do
> Wikipedia a favor and move it to the talk page (or remove it
> entirely).

Yes and no. Sometimes "references in popular culture" do tell you
something, like a reference to "I, Robot", or a GWB gaff, etc. But
mentioning a reference to someone that was already very notable in
their own right is pointless.

Steve


from_name: Mathias Schindler

subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
On 7/20/06, ScottL <scott at mu.org> wrote:

>    I don't know.  I think we can go too far in referencing every fact in
> an article.  Do you need a verifiable reference to say that Harry potter
> and the Half blood prince is a work of fiction?  I mean if that is the
> standard then every article on wikipedia needs {{fact}} plastered all
> over it.

Again, have a look at the article in question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Half-Blood_Prince
"Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, released on July 16, 2005, is
the sixth novel in J. K. Rowling's popular Harry Potter series. There
are seven novels planned."

At least the part about the seventh novel can and should be
referenced. By the way, the last sentence is starting to weasel. Who
exactly is planning: The publisher, the author, the marketing
department?

Mathias


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On 7/20/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> What I would like to see is mention that Tutu being named in friends is not
> sufficiently useful to be included in the article. Now if he actually
> appeared in the episode...

...then that would be interesting to mention on the article about the
episode. But unless his appearance was particularly notable (ie,
controversial, caused a schism in the church, example of how he lost
the plot in 1997...), then it's probably still too trivial to mention
in his article.

Moral of the story: Keep fancruft where it belongs: on articles about
the series itself.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
On 7/19/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is
> better to have no information, than to have information like this, with
> no sources.  Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it
> back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient
> of a barnstar.

I've asked a few times, but I'll do so again, more bluntly: How do you
intend to encourage this, beyond occasional rants to this mailing
list? Are we authorised to make big changes to WP:V and claim that
Jimbo said it was ok? How far are we going with this? Is it just a
cultural change, or policy change?

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
On 7/19/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
> source that statement.  It's very easy to find someone who has said that,
> but to source it to anyone in particular could be misleading because it
> implies that there is some special relationship between the idea and the
> source.  If something is common knowledge it should only be sourced if the
> sourcing helps to establist the origin or development of the idea.  Just
> sticking in a source at random can be misleading.

One solution is to source it to a very general reference work, such as
Britannica, or even an introductory science textbook. You can also put
"e.g." in the citation, to reinforce the idea that this is just one
possible reference amongst many.

Overall, citing common sense is probably still beneficial as it
doubles as "further reading" material for readers. If the reader is
really interested in whether evolution is responsible for this
diversity, why not give them a place to check that statement out? A
low priority for us, but not harmful.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
On 7/20/06, ScottL <scott at mu.org> wrote:
>   I have a question about all of this.  What about a case when you are
> claiming something relatively complex about something related to the
> current article but not the primary subject of that article, and you
> have wikilinked to the term.  If the claim (or series of related claims)
> are explained and referenced at the article on that topic do you need to
> reference them again?  If an interested reader can still find the
> references by following the link do they need to be reproduced locally?

Good question, in some cases I've seen "See linked article for full
references." Be explicit about it - don't let people think we don't
actually have the sources.

Steve


from_name: Peter Grecian

subject: [Wikitech-l] Lost session data

body:
Has the false error message  'lost session data' when editing with
preferences->show preview on first edit
been fixed ?

Is it bug 6477 ?
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?bug_id=6477

Is there a quick workaround - disable the error message for example ?

Thanks

Peter

>Great, I've got this narrowed down and will have it fixed shortly. Thanks for
>the report!
>
>-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
On 7/19/06, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
> Yeah, I've been working more in the science area these days, and
> not only does it tend to have fewer rabid partisans, but there is
> an ever-so-gradual influx of professional scientists for whom adding
> citations is as natural as breathing. (Not long ago, I narrowly saved
> myself from embarassment when I was about to disagree with an editor
> on a fine point, then realized he was the very author of the printed
> material open on my lap...)

Lol. I'm finding that sourcing can actually be fairly easy and fun. I
mostly contribute to tourism-type stuff. Example: I recently visited
Kilkenny Castle in Ireland. I took a couple of photos and bought a
copy of the Kilkenny Castle Visitor's Guide (80c for a single sheet of
cardboard - what a rip!) Then I added material to the article and
cited the Guide. Sure, it's not university-level citation, but it's a
hell of a lot better than nothing.

Or, in other cases, I just cite the web a lot. I think it's far more
useful to have information of dubious reliability where we have cited
a website of dubious reliability, than either a) no information at
all, or b) the same information of dubious reliability, unsourced.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> That'd be cool. Let's think - what *is* the harm in boundless
> fancruft? There must be harm, or we would allow it. Perhaps it is
> simply that boundless fancruft strays too far from our mission, which
> is to produce an encyclopaedia that is not just a random collection of
> information.
>
> Someone help me out here - we all know that it's wrong to have 600
> pages describing every fight ever shown in any Pok?mon episode. But
> why?

Please don't put words in my mouth. While your hypothetical example is
extreme, I would still find it wrong only for technical reasons - each
fight description would be rather short and low on context, they'd do
much better IMO as something like [[List of Pok?mon battles]]
(subdivided by season if one page is too large). It's not a random
collection of information if we apply uniform standards of quality and
structure to it.

I don't see how the "fancruft" we include is any more a "random
collection of information" than the vast amounts of sportscruft,
militarycruft, politiciancruft, and other sorts of subjectcruft that for
some reason have an air of respectability about it that recent popular
culture alone seems to lack. Who ever complains about how Wikipedia has
articles for almost every ship that happened to participate in WWII, no
matter how trivial its role? Or how there are articles about people
whose sole claim to fame is an unspectacular one-year Senate position in
Smallcounty, Iowa back in the 1820s?

I think the massive inclusiveness of Wikipedia is one of its best
traits. Wikipedia is like a specialist encyclopedia that specializes in
_everything_. When I see an article about an obscure topic I don't ask
myself "should there be an article about this in a general
encyclopedia?", I ask myself "should there be an article about this in
an Encyclopedia of Stamp Collecting, or Encyclopedia of Star Trek, or
Encyclopedia of 18th Century Railroading, or Encyclopedia of
Agriculture, etc.?"

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060720/5a81e65b/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On 7/20/06, ScottL <scott at mu.org> wrote:
>   My impression of the trivia sections is that they serve a very
> important purpose.  They are the compromise that keeps the trivia out of
> the rest of the article.  Now I am not saying I like them, but if you
> remove them then the contents of the section will work its way back into
> the article.  It will be spread out where readers will find it and it
> will reflect poorly on us.  Now if its keep in a trivia section the blow
> to our image is less or possibly totally mitigated, and I admit
> sometimes I am in the mood for a bit of trivia.

They should be flagged with a big TRIVIA WARNING template.

Steve


from_name: A

subject: [WikiEN-l] Quackpotwatch AfD

body:
On 7/20/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> Its notability derives from Quackwatch.

Quackpotwatch is basically a "QuackwatchSucks.com" website. To say an
attack/hate site is notable and/or reliable simply because the site it
attacks is notable/reliable doesn't seem to match up with established
policies. Further, since Quackpotwatch is being used to source
defamatory statements about a living person, it appears to fail not
only the guidelines at [[WP:WEB]] but the official policy at
[[WP:BLP]].


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is forever.

body:
Oldak Quill wrote:

>>I've read that Encarta represented the first shoe to drop for EB; it
>>could not easily adapt to that technology shift.  Now, with the benefit
>>of hindsight this does not seem as though it would have been such a big
>>change.
>>
>>The major paradigm shift lay in the enabling of two-way online
>>communications.  The passive consumer could now also become a content
>>producer.  This wasn't quite what ISP's had hoped for in an asymmetrical
>>technology that assumed that the public would want to download far more
>>than they would upload.  Their model also presumed that they would
>>profit from also providing the content.
>>
>>
>I'm not sure this changes my point. If Britannica had adapted to the
>proliferation of personal computing and portable media by releasing a
>comprehensive, easy-to-use and widely advertised electronic edition
>before Microsoft managed to release Encarta, they may have remained on
>top into the 21st century. Similarly, if they had jumped on the Wiki
>bandwagon a little later, they may have further adapted and remained
>on top for several more decades.
>
Established companies do not change by simply drinking from a fountain
of youth.  Encarta took a step forward from Britannica, but when it came
to understand the importance of public participation its klunky results
were already stuck in an existing proprietary model.  Nupedia could
transform itself because it was never anything more than an experimental
skeleton.

Ec


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

Nathan stated for the record:

> I can do, if it's still needed.
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006, Sean Barrett wrote:
>
>
> I have a handful of public-domain instructional videos (moving diagrams)
> that I'd like to upload, but they are in SWF format.  Can someone
> contact me directly, off-list, to help me convert them to an acceptable
> format?
>
> Thanks!
>

Yes, still needed.  We have a request (hi, Cormac!) to keep the
discussion on-list, so let's stay here at least at first.

I'm running Gentoo Linux, but have access to XP if needed.

Please begin, Nathan.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Back off, man, I'm a scientist.
 sean at epoptic.com | --Dr. Peter Venkman
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEv7/6MAt1wyd9d+URAgH0AJwOeMty84pU6jlT4lIinHtzgh4xfwCeIWna
CQKLJ//w/nd9IN54FoF+n8k=
=3ZWy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Mark Wagner

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
On 7/20/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So what do you define as excessive fancruft? Surely  a [[Bulbasaur]] article
> isn't considered fancruft? I'm afraid that personal hate of the subject and
> reputation paranoia are in fact the number 1 reasons for calling something
> fancruft. Any valid reason to exclude or delete such items could be
> explained with the regular policies without dumping the fancruft label on
> it.

Any article on a fictional subject written largely as if the author
were living in the fictional universe in question is fancruft.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


from_name: Yury Tarasievich

body:
I wonder, is there a policy on using of the places (specifically,
cities) names, which have been (often) changed, historically? Does one
have to use only the "actual" name? Or should it depend on context,
possibly?

---


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

Gregory Maxwell stated for the record:

> On 7/20/06, Nathan <lists at home.nathanr.com> wrote:
>
>>So you have flash animations, is that right?
>>What do you need them converted to?
>>Can you send me the files? I'm pretty sure I can convert them.
>>
>>Thanks.
>
>
> He'd need them either as animated GIFs or as Ogg/Theora.
>
> (Animated gifs work inline, but stink for anything with many colors) :)

I vastly prefer Theora to GIF.  The files can be found at

http://www.epoptic.com/flash/turn_anderson.swf ,
http://www.epoptic.com/flash/turn_racetrack.swf ,
http://www.epoptic.com/flash/turn_y_back.swf ,
http://www.epoptic.com/flash/turn_delayed.swf , and
http://www.epoptic.com/flash/turn_williamson.swf

Each begins with a page of text that should be left out.  What I want is
the animation you get after clicking on the "play" button (the
right-pointing triangle in a circle).

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Back off, man, I'm a scientist.
 sean at epoptic.com | --Dr. Peter Venkman
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEv8dsMAt1wyd9d+URArkdAJwLRBQHNJ7YwgAwz1m/UIsTBtCnIACeOCUV
qGS1PVEnWs5lNUsCRVdQlvg=
=sYR0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


list: commons-l

from_name: Tim 'avatar' Bartel

subject:
[Commons-l] Please don't spam user-talk
	pages	withgeneric	warnings

body:
Hi Wikipedians,

Platonides schrieb am 07/19/2006 10:32 PM:
> No, it wasn't. At first it was only enabled on enwiki. On commons was
> activated on Brianna's request.

I see.

I should have tested it on Commons before writing my mail.
On the other hand now I'm more informed than before :-)

Bye, Tim.

--
http://wikipedistik.de

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 546 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20060720/989f5c22/attachment.pgp


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 05:50:38 +0100, "Tony Sidaway" <f.crdfa at gmail.com>
wrote:

>When it comes to biographical articles, however, and particularly
>those about living people, everything should be referenced.

So what do we do with [[Lance Armstrong]]?  All the insinuations about
doping are sourced, it's just that (a) they are circumstantial and (b)
he has already successfully sued one newspaper for implying that they
are true.  Every time we point out that he is technically and legally
innocent, a number of "balancing" facts implying the opposite are
added.  I am seriously concerned about this.  Should I be?

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is forever.

body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:

>On 7/18/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I think it is more to do with Wikipedia's ability to adapt and change
>>with developing technology. If Encyclopedia Britannica had created a
>>wiki back in 2000, Wikipedia may not exist and Britannica would have
>>extended their lifetime by a few decades.
>>
>>
>"It's not the technology. It's the social structure, stupid".
>Although Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia and not about a
>building a community, without our social structure our project could
>not be a success.   Wiki does a lot in facilitating our activity, but
>to suggest that Britannica would have had an increased lifetime merely
>by adopting Wiki technology is somewhat laughable.
>
It's also the ability to live with paradox.  In its short life Wikipedia
has aged dramatically.  It has already made many fundamental decisions
that limit its future options.

Take verifiability as an example.  This concept is a direct response to
repeated complaints from the outside world that Wikipedia is not a
reliable source of information.  From a strictly objective perspective
verifiability is a good thing, but it still has a cost.  It leads to a
situation where the game is taken ove by rules lawyers who can convince
the other players that order is good.  This makes it very difficult for
the Calvinball player to introduce a new rule into the existing game.
Instead, his new rule involves starting a new game.  The 18th century
Calvinball players that set up Britannica established the seeds of their
own destruction when they failed to account for the internet; that they
were unaware of the internet at the time is irrelevant.

>[snip]
>
>
>>As long as we are willing to embrace changes and developments (such
>>as, at the moment, Wiktionary Z and Semantic MediaWiki) and don't
>>object for reasons of familiarity, we should do fine.
>>
>>
>To add some contrast:
>Just because you die out without some changes, does not mean all
>changes should be accepted.  In biology we find that most mutations
>are harmful.
>
No, I would venture to say that most mutations are inconsequential.

>Because of the poor resource availability to cost ratio our project is
>sorely lacking alternative solutions on the development side. This
>results in an inability to produce a 'survival of the fittest'
>environment for software features. I am concerned that this is a
>significant risk.
>
Quite the contrary.  If you can't come up with the resources you are not
the fittest.

>I can't suggest a real solution to this today, but I think that one of
>the things we already to today helps the situation somewhat:  do as
>much as possible without modifying Mediawiki. And with bots,
>toolserver, templates, manual, and quasi-manual processes... we're
>already doing that.
>
Which only proves my point that most biological mutations are
inconsequential.  Your examples reflect only mere tinkering with the
accepted technology of the game.

>I'm wary of software which grants someone who merely has working code
>the ability to control long term direction of the project.  Enwiki
>folks are very concerned about the consolidation of 'power' that comes
>from combining a bcrat and a arbcom member in one usrs....  Good thing
>that developers are under the radar, because with the ability to make
>wide scale decisions without consensus that comes from a patch is
>pretty much unparalleled.   But I suppose thats why we don't have any
>developers on the Wikimedia Foundation board.
>
Except for the last bit of speculation this seems to appreciate the game.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 05:25:33 +0100, "Tony Sidaway" <f.crdfa at gmail.com>
wrote:

>Funny.  But it has no more place on an article about Desmond Tutu than
>an episode of Bewitched has on the Benjamin Franklin article.

How true those words are even today.

An argument I have fairly frequently with the YTMNDers as well :-)

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


from_name: Lord Voldemort

subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
On 7/20/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> That section needs a good rearrange. It begins well, by establishing
> that Armstrong has never failed a test despite being one of the most
> tested athletes ever. However then it goes into 'allegation mode',
> essentially giving a list of the allegations made against Armstrong at
> various times.
>
> The section would be better, IMO, by cutting some of the less
> important or most unreliable allegations (the whole last paragraph,
> for example, is very shady) and make the descriptions of how he was
> cleared every time clearer.

Isn't it time this discussion moved (more) to the talk page? Don't
really want to seem rude, but that seems the appropriate place.
Thanks. --LV


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

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

Elisabeth Bauer stated for the record:

> Allowing too much "fancruft" in Wikipedia creates an imbalance in the community
> structure. There is a really large pool of 15 year old, computer savy kids (some
> may be older) who get easily attracted to writing wikipedia articles about f.e.
> star trek compared to a very small pool of for example experts on let's say
> homer. The latter group won't be as easily drawn into writing for wikipedia than
> the first. And they will be less and less willing to do so, if they find a
> community dominated by 15 year old star trek fans.
>
> greetings,
> elian

What evidence do you have indicating that any such correlation exists?
Have any studies have been done on the effects of fancruft on the
average age and expertise of the editor population?

Or do you just dislike Star Trek?

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Back off, man, I'm a scientist.
 sean at epoptic.com | --Dr. Peter Venkman
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEv9eXMAt1wyd9d+URAl/ZAJ4rBq95EnYaylngZAVAuJ3CTa75RwCfb3DG
fk4deRsmu6UYKIUBq4ccstw=
=T9i2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
Hi all,
  I've written a short essay to tackle notability from a different
direction: why do we want to exclude certain articles? It's at
[[Wikipedia:Exclusion]]. I'd appreciate your thoughts and additions!

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On 7/20/06, ScottL <scott at mu.org> wrote:
>   Probably though most the time I see them under there own level 2 or 3
> heading of Trivia.  I think an actual "OMG TRIVIA WATCH OUT!" kinda box
> would disrupt the flow of the article.  Heck I don't much care for the
> spoiler warning templates though obviously they are necessary.
>
>    The best solution is to teach editors not to want to include trivia
> to begin with.

They do have one benefit: they let new editors get their toes wet. It
seems to me that the first contributions made by a lot of new editors
are either adding to trivia sections like that ("Oh! Oh! I know! I saw
this in a Simpsons episode once! I can't believe no one added that!")
or adding to existing lists of other things (creating the phenomenon
of a list of 37 examples when only 2 were needed).

Solution: Regular pruning.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
On 7/20/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> added.  I am seriously concerned about this.  Should I be?

There is every reason in the world to think that most professional
cyclists, especially including Armstrong, have taken one or more
prohibited substances during their career. An article which gives the
opposite impression would be misleading.

Steve


from_name: Anthere

body:
geni wrote:
> On 7/19/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>So that it is clear that discussions do not always get buried and
>>forgotten :-)
>>
>>Some time ago, we discussed the possibility to create an ombudsman
>>commission to deal with complaints related to abuse of the Foundation
>>privacy policy, associated to checkuser activity or not.
>>
>>A resolution(*) has been written to describe the role of the commission
>>and the extent of its delegation. 3 members have been proposed.
>>
>
>
> So is it now time to froce a name change on user:ombudsman?

Are you aware that I was at some point the owner of this account ? :-)

ant


from_name: George Herbert

body:
On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20/07/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Or maybe Ombudsman can keep his name, and Wikimedia can register "Wikimedia
> > Ombudsman" -- far more official sounding.
>
> This would be my choice. We shouldn't aggravate a user when a far more
> easy, and friendly, option is available.

I would like to second this.  Why were people so willing to advocate
shoving User:Ombudsman around with official power or sanctions on this
issue?

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: James Hare

body:
Yes... if we're going to have ombudsmen, they should either get individual
accounts (Ombudsman01, Ombudsman02, etc) or use their account.

On 7/20/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Angela wrote:
> > On 7/20/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>So is it now time to force a name change on user:ombudsman?
> >>
> >>Are you aware that I was at some point the owner of this account ? :-)
> >
> >
> > I think you're mistaking it for User:Mediator.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ombudsman doesn't
> > seem like you.
> >
> > -- User:Arbitrator ;)
>
> oh, true true true. My mistake.
>
> Ant
>
> PS : is it a good idea to have a user named ombudsman ?
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
On 7/20/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/20/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I would like to second this.  Why were people so willing to advocate
> > shoving User:Ombudsman around with official power or sanctions on this
> > issue?
>
> Because, apparantly, the name Ombudman would be confusing.  People may
> think that is the official ombudsman. Andrew Lih above fell into that.
>  That's why I suggested the can't-be-missed box on his user page.

There is a difference between "Your user account was not previously a
problem or conflict with official Wikipedia functions, but is now, we
need to officially ask you to change it or put up a disclaimer on your
User page" and "Hey, let's all go force a name change on this guy
because he didn't cooperate before".

That there may need to be a change and/or disclaimer is reasonably
obvious now.  There is zero justification in that necessity for any
abuse of User:Ombudsman.  They weren't violating policy before when
they refused to change their name.  Beating them up now for having
previously stood up for their rights is inappropriate.

That there were discussions of forced changes or a permanent ban
before anyone sent a polite note to them explaining that Things had
Changed is a terrible, terrible shame for this mailing list...

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 7/20/06, Cormac Lawler <cormaggio at gmail.com> wrote:
> Why off-list? I'd be interested in finding out about an swf open
> format converter - I was looking around for something like that the
> other day, but couldn't find anything. Possibly Gnash:
> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/>, but I'm not sure if it converts
> or simply plays Flash files.

I'd replied to him off list, but since there is interest:

In general flash files can't just be converted.  SWF is, in most
regards, a virtual machine.. Like Java except far more proprietary and
less general.  So SWF files are executable code that runs in a sandbox
with an extensive standard library for building high-tech dancing
baloney.

A SWF could contain actual video data, encapsulated with a player...
this acts as a fancy form of DRM :), or it could be vector graphics
(like [[SVG]]) with code that makes it move, or it could be just about
anything else.

To convert a non-interactive SVG to video, I'd probably try rigging up
something to capture screenshots of it at high speed, then assemble
the results into a video file.  I can't promise that the results will
be good.

If the SWF is actual video, as opposed to an animated vector drawing,
we should probably try to contact the author and get the content in a
normal video format.


from_name: Nathan

body:
So you have flash animations, is that right?
What do you need them converted to?
Can you send me the files? I'm pretty sure I can convert them.

Thanks.

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006, Sean Barrett wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Nathan stated for the record:
>
> > I can do, if it's still needed.
> >
> > On Thu, 20 Jul 2006, Sean Barrett wrote:
> >
> >
> > I have a handful of public-domain instructional videos (moving diagrams)
> > that I'd like to upload, but they are in SWF format.  Can someone
> > contact me directly, off-list, to help me convert them to an acceptable
> > format?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
>
> Yes, still needed.  We have a request (hi, Cormac!) to keep the
> discussion on-list, so let's stay here at least at first.
>
> I'm running Gentoo Linux, but have access to XP if needed.
>
> Please begin, Nathan.
>
> - --
>  Sean Barrett     | Back off, man, I'm a scientist.
>  sean at epoptic.com | --Dr. Peter Venkman
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFEv7/6MAt1wyd9d+URAgH0AJwOeMty84pU6jlT4lIinHtzgh4xfwCeIWna
> CQKLJ//w/nd9IN54FoF+n8k=
> =3ZWy
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
On 7/20/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
> Its passive voice, which is not encouraged.

There's really nothing wrong with passive voice, whatever Microsoft
likes to tell you. It gets boring and formal if overused, but a
sentence like "7 series are planned" is perfectly acceptable, and even
preferable to something awkward like "The producers have planned 7
series".

Steve


body:
On 7/20/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> But is the box, which would link to the true ombudsman, be a good idea?

There is (now) a legitimate policy issue with his username, I guess.

I think it's entirely appropriate to ask him again if he'll
voluntarily change his account name, and if not then it's entirely
appropriate to insist that he allow a disclaimer/pointer box to the
Wikipedia Ombudsman at the top of his homepage, given the new
possibility of user confusion of him and an official function.

I'm just unhappy with the immediately draconian proposed responses as
opposed to starting with constructive polite requests, with a couple
of options we can talk with him about.  There was no call for
threatening to nuke him rather than asking nicely.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


body:
On 7/20/06, Nathan <lists at home.nathanr.com> wrote:
> So you have flash animations, is that right?
> What do you need them converted to?
> Can you send me the files? I'm pretty sure I can convert them.
>
> Thanks.

He'd need them either as animated GIFs or as Ogg/Theora.

(Animated gifs work inline, but stink for anything with many colors) :)


subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
On 7/20/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> There's really nothing wrong with passive voice, whatever Microsoft
> likes to tell you. It gets boring and formal if overused, but a
> sentence like "7 series are planned" is perfectly acceptable, and even
> preferable to something awkward like "The producers have planned 7
> series".

After "Matrix" became a blockbuster, the producers suddenly announced
that they always wanted to make a trilogy. It is certainly
interesteting who planned what when in this particular case.

In the JKR case, you might want to use the valuable space (it is not
limited by storage on wikimedia servers or bandwith on the way to the
computer but rather by the motivation of a visitor to wikipedia.org to
read boring, content-poor sentences) for more precise information such
as "Bloomsbury will release the seventh part of the series on May 35,
2342".

Along with a reference.

Mathias


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is forever.

body:
Oldak Quill wrote:

>>Wiki does a lot in facilitating our activity, but
>>to suggest that Britannica would have had an increased lifetime merely
>>by adopting Wiki technology is somewhat laughable.
>>
>>
>I was making the assumption (an assumption which I maintain isn't
>invalid) that having put the Wiki infrastructure in place, and having
>done a little advertising, the project would have been successful. I
>don't think Wikipedia was successful because it grew from the FLOSS
>community. It was successful because anyone could edit it (you could
>argue that this was entirely because Wikipeida grew out of the FLOSS
>community).
>
Absolutely.

>Britannica could have been just as successful if they had
>allowed anyone to edit.
>
I doubt it.  Asking it to do that would be like asking its editors to
throw themseves from a cliff in the expectation that angels would guide
them safely to the ground.  Their most important editions were premised
on the authority of established and famous experts and top scholars of
the day.  That would have been too much to give up.

>>Because of the poor resource availability to cost ratio our project is
>>sorely lacking alternative solutions on the development side. This
>>results in an inability to produce a 'survival of the fittest'
>>environment for software features. I am concerned that this is a
>>significant risk.
>>
>>
>We do, in fact, have quite a powerful development environment. The
>"open-sourceness"of our software allows for interesting twists and
>turns in MediaWiki. Others can develop MediaWiki in a ways that we
>don't have time and resources for. As an example of this, just take a
>look at the development of Semantic MediaWiki on Sourceforge. This
>development takes nothing from Wikimedia resources but potentially
>benefits us on a grand scale. This is facilitated by our commitment to
>free software - the ability of others to reuse our work and create
>better things with it
>
>I think we *do* have a "survival of the fittest" development method.
>Apart from the aforementioned "open-sourceness" of our software,
>members of the community (who aren't developers) spend their own time
>developing certain features and additions in the form of bots and
>tools on toolserver. These features are then put through rigorous
>practical tests (bots function on Wikipedia, proving their worth and
>exposing their mistakes). If one of these features proves to be
>wonderfully useful, it is assimilated into MediaWiki proper.
>
FLOSS is about software.  Your comments focus on software, and even
though the "medium is the message", you seem to forget that a
significant proportion of us deal purely and simply with content.  For
the general reader software is only a small part of what Wikipedia is about.

Ec


from_name: Oldak Quill

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
The last section on "Imaginary universes" seems out of keeping with
the rest of the essay. Articles about things in imaginary universes
are usually very well maintained and monitored by a high number of
users. Conflicts rarely serve as distractions and, since we are not
paper, they do little to harm us fiscally.

The following sentence makes obvious the real reason for you dislike
of these articles, elitism: "The harm is mostly the maintenance of
large numbers of pages, and to our reputation: a serious
encyclopedia".

Ultimately, and sadly, it is not hard to imagine that more people wish
to read about [[Bulbasaur]] than [[Operation Barbarossa]]. I,
personally, am not a fan of Pokemon at all, but I certainly don't
object to articles on Pokemon characters if they are factually
accurate and verifiable. These articles are of great interest to some,
they bring thousands of users to Wikipedia and they do no harm. What
is more, no other article will *ever* be placed at Bulbasaur or
Pikachu and, if they were, a simple disambiguation would be required.

With all this in mind the only reason I can see for your objection to
them is that traditional encyclopedias would not have such articles.
Traditional encyclopedias would not have the space or the expertise
for these articles. They did not need or want to appeal to teenagers
and teenagers interests, we can and do.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
> I wasn't trying to be funny, nor was I trying to say that it belonged
> in the article.
>
> The problem isn't lack of source.  It's more one of original research.

The problem is *not* original research. To summarise the events of an
episode, film, book or the features of a piece of software, or the
design of a famous building, is not original research.

The problem is the inclusion of inane trivia in articles where they
won't benefit the reader. The average reader of [[Desmond Tutu]] will
not learn anything about him because his name was mentioned in a
popular television show.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [Foundation-l] Help requested on Commons copyright woes

body:
Photographs of copyrighted statues and of objects featuring
copyrighted logos and images (Simpson's dolls) should be taken down
immediately. I think photos of 2D  and 3D PD art rarely can have
claims of copyright, but I'm not a lawyer.
--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: geni

body:
On 7/20/06, N/A N/A <erachima at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I would like to know the answer to this as well. The amazing ambivalence
> towards uncited information in articles, even those where the lack of
> citation puts the article into significant NPOV violation, is appalling. If
> we could require sources on any significant addition, especially to
> controversial articles, it would solve some of the content and NPOV disputes
> in serious articles.

Not really. "have you got a source for that" is an lod battle cry. It
solves nothing.

> It would also be of benefit in our fandom driven
> articles, as stricter sourcing rules would be enable us to slash out
> speculative "information" without hesitation.
>

You think wikipedia is the only place people write fancruft?

--
geni


list: wiktionary-l

subject: [Wiktionary-l] New functionality

body:
Are you planning on making WiktionaryZ semantic? Will you frame
content in both human-readable form and in some kind of RDF/OWL
casing? This could certainly be a very useful feature.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Sydney aka FloNight

body:
I think it should be changed. Too confusing.

Could someone write a nicely worded explanation about why it is going to be changed on a certain date?
Then do it. It will be over and done.

Regards,
Sydney

---- geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/20/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > PS : is it a good idea to have a user named ombudsman ?
> >
>
> The issue has been raised from time to time (I think it got a mention
> in the user's RFC). Since the user has refused to change there hasn't
> really been much that can be done.
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
> Maybe take it from the other point of view: the *only* problem with
> excessive fancruft is that it damages our credibility.

I don't believe we should compromise our acceptance of content because
we worry that some will think less of us. It is not our aim to
perfectly match the role of the traditional encyclopedia. We are going
to include some content that some think is below them (or should not
be in an encyclopedia), that's fine and it isn't our problem. If a
user doesn't wish to read about [[Bulbasaur]] then they should take my
lead and avoid it.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


body:
On 7/20/06, Sydney aka FloNight <poore5 at adelphia.net> wrote:
> I think it should be changed. Too confusing.
>
> Could someone write a nicely worded explanation about why it is going to be changed on a certain date?
> Then do it. It will be over and done.

Why not just ask nicely (which has been done before), and if he says
no, ask him to place a big, flashy, gawdy, super-duper shiny box near
the top of his pages explaining that he is not the _official_
ombudsman with a link to the real users' pages.  And if he refuses
that, tell him sorry, block the account based on an inappropriate
username, and be on with it.  Too harsh?  --LV


body:
On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> Photographs of copyrighted statues and of objects featuring
> copyrighted logos and images (Simpson's dolls) should be taken down
> immediately. I think photos of 2D  and 3D PD art rarely can have
> claims of copyright, but I'm not a lawyer.

IMNAL

But as far as I understand 3D certianly can under US law (I think the
court decided that it could based on camera angels and lighting and
such. I belive the case involved a photo of a statue in a graveyard).
Photos of 2D objects are more complex since no one appears to want to
risk a case in that area (situation is even worse in the UK).

--
geni


body:
Well, certainly not the most harsh thing Lord Voldemort has ever proposed.
;)

If I owned the User:Ombudsman account, and refused to change it, I probably
wouldn't mind a box at the top of my page.

On 7/20/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/20/06, Sydney aka FloNight <poore5 at adelphia.net> wrote:
> > I think it should be changed. Too confusing.
> >
> > Could someone write a nicely worded explanation about why it is going to
> be changed on a certain date?
> > Then do it. It will be over and done.
>
> Why not just ask nicely (which has been done before), and if he says
> no, ask him to place a big, flashy, gawdy, super-duper shiny box near
> the top of his pages explaining that he is not the _official_
> ombudsman with a link to the real users' pages.  And if he refuses
> that, tell him sorry, block the account based on an inappropriate
> username, and be on with it.  Too harsh?  --LV
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
> > I can't wait for the stub cabal to instantly lose their purpose.

Stub cabal? What's next, the toilet cleaning cabal? The macdonalds cabal?

Steve


body:
On 7/20/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/20/06, Sydney aka FloNight <poore5 at adelphia.net> wrote:
> > Reminder that all of banned user Andrew Morrow's new edits on all parts of Wikipedia site should be reverted and removed from view. Articles started by Amorrow after he was banned need to be deleted. Some of his edits need to be removed through oversight.
>
> A user is editing parts of Wikipedia, through his own account, after
> being banned? Why not just block him?
>
> Steve

We have repeatedly.

--
geni


body:
On 7/20/06, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not
> saying that "Ombudsman" is literally offending but it might be
> considered if the user constantly refuses and if consensus is reached
> that his username could be misleading.

Well (and I don't really care about this subject, and can't really
believe I am even involved in the discussion) all I know is that
[[Wikipedia:Username]] states that one type of inappropriate user name
is "Names that include commonly used Wikipedia software or community
terms, or imply an official position on Wikipedia."

When we actually get some type of ombudsman, the name may become
"inappropriate".  But what do I know, my user name probably violates
the "Trademarked names" clause (which must have been added since my
start here. Off to check.  ;-)  --LV


body:
On 7/20/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort at gmail.com> wrote:
> But what do I know, my user name probably violates
> the "Trademarked names" clause (which must have been added since my
> start here. Off to check.  ;-)  --LV

A-ha, the take on me is that it was broadened by an anon a couple of weeks ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Username&diff=63071619&oldid=63071339

Hmmm...  Just thought I'd throw that out there.  --LV


body:
Did you intend on making such a nice pun? :)

On 7/20/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/20/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort at gmail.com> wrote:
> > But what do I know, my user name probably violates
> > the "Trademarked names" clause (which must have been added since my
> > start here. Off to check.  ;-)  --LV
>
> A-ha, the take on me is that it was broadened by an anon a couple of weeks
> ago:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Username&diff=63071619&oldid=63071339
>
> Hmmm...  Just thought I'd throw that out there.  --LV
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Eric R. Meyers

body:
On Thursday 20 July 2006 13:21, Anthere wrote:
> > I've been very impressed with everything that The Wikimedia Foundation
> > has been creating while I've been gone, and I consider myself very lucky
> > to be doing my stuff with the help of Angela and Sannse at Wikia.
>
> You aware that Wikia and Wikimedia Foundation are two different
> entities, right ?
>
Yes.

I originally came to foundation-l earlier this month to ask for some expert
guidance about starting The Perl Wiki, and all that I previously knew about
was Wikipedia and Wiktionary, because I've used them to learn about many
things.  I'm always searching to identify what is wrong with my CNS, because
what I'm suffering from is very rare, if not unique, and the doctors don't
have a clue, so I'm just a little brain chemistry experiment to them.  The
physical disability is no fun at all, but at least I've got my mind back to
work finally, and I'm restarting my life, and I lived through a hell for my
two young girls. :)

Angela started up http://perl.wikia.com for me, and I been over there
inventing the structure of The Perl Wiki since then, but I haven't got enough
help yet to start producing the content that the Perl Wikipedians demand for
me to link into the Perl article.  I've got one systems programmer helping me
out.

> > James, or Jimbo, I'd like to meet you too, someday. :)
> >
> > Will someone please put this good thing on his desk today, so that he and
> > everyone else on the board can sign it off and get it done for the public
> > good.
>
> If you can find a way to make Jimbo sign/vote stuff, please tell me the
> secret :-) I am interested.
>
Be crazy enough to ask for "The Right Thing" to happen at "The Right Time." :)

> On a serious note, the spc is considering the creation of it. I intend
> the committee to give its opinion before Wikimania on the topic. It
> would be real cool if we could announce that at that time :-)
>
Now I'll learn about Wikimania.

> Then, after committee approval, we have roughly two options. We must
> submit it for board approval, which requires at least 3 approval, so at
> least 3 votes (there are 5 board members).
> Option 1 : submit it to the board and wait for the 3 votes. This may
> take a very long time.
> Option 2 : submit it with a maximum delay, after which only votes given
> are taken into account.
>
> In the past few days, I have been considering the three levels, data,
> information and knowledge. Most of our projects are actually providing
> "information". Wiktionary is rather providing "data". Wikibooks is
> sometimes providing "information" but it is sometimes wandering in
> "knowledge". Wikiversity will definitly entering the field of knowledge
> and this is what worried editors the most (the teaching part). Still, if
> I look well, the Foundation is claiming bringing knowledge. I see no
> reason why this project should not be started.
>

I don't believe that this should be so complicated.  Please read my personal
apology at the bottom of
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikiversity#Wikiversity_.E2.80.93_Final_Push

The 5 board members are actually living, breathing and thinking human beings
with the full mental capacity to be very proactive for "The Right Thing" to
happen at "The Right Time," and that is today, now and ASAP.  So much has
already been lost in this great delay.  The real shame is that some very good
people have simply walked away from supporting this very good thing.  I've
seen it, because it's in the record.  It's time for the 5 board members to
show some of their own "joyful" enthusiasm to actively bring this good thing
to fruition, or just kill it outright, so that it can find a better home in
this world.

What is The Truth?

Thanks,

Eric

> Ant
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060720/4db63431/attachment.pgp


body:
On Thursday 20 July 2006 13:21, Anthere wrote:
> > I've been very impressed with everything that The Wikimedia Foundation
> > has been creating while I've been gone, and I consider myself very lucky
> > to be doing my stuff with the help of Angela and Sannse at Wikia.
>
> You aware that Wikia and Wikimedia Foundation are two different
> entities, right ?
>
Yes.

I originally came to foundation-l earlier this month to ask for some expert
guidance about starting The Perl Wiki, and all that I previously knew about
was Wikipedia and Wiktionary, because I've used them to learn about many
things.  I'm always searching to identify what is wrong with my CNS, because
what I'm suffering from is very rare, if not unique, and the doctors don't
have a clue, so I'm just a little brain chemistry experiment to them.  The
physical disability is no fun at all, but at least I've got my mind back to
work finally, and I'm restarting my life, and I lived through a hell for my
two young girls. :)

Angela started up http://perl.wikia.com for me, and I been over there
inventing the structure of The Perl Wiki since then, but I haven't got enough
help yet to start producing the content that the Perl Wikipedians demand for
me to link into the Perl article.  I've got one systems programmer helping me
out.

> > James, or Jimbo, I'd like to meet you too, someday. :)
> >
> > Will someone please put this good thing on his desk today, so that he and
> > everyone else on the board can sign it off and get it done for the public
> > good.
>
> If you can find a way to make Jimbo sign/vote stuff, please tell me the
> secret :-) I am interested.
>
Be crazy enough to ask for "The Right Thing" to happen at "The Right Time." :)

> On a serious note, the spc is considering the creation of it. I intend
> the committee to give its opinion before Wikimania on the topic. It
> would be real cool if we could announce that at that time :-)
>
Now I'll learn about Wikimania.

> Then, after committee approval, we have roughly two options. We must
> submit it for board approval, which requires at least 3 approval, so at
> least 3 votes (there are 5 board members).
> Option 1 : submit it to the board and wait for the 3 votes. This may
> take a very long time.
> Option 2 : submit it with a maximum delay, after which only votes given
> are taken into account.
>
> In the past few days, I have been considering the three levels, data,
> information and knowledge. Most of our projects are actually providing
> "information". Wiktionary is rather providing "data". Wikibooks is
> sometimes providing "information" but it is sometimes wandering in
> "knowledge". Wikiversity will definitly entering the field of knowledge
> and this is what worried editors the most (the teaching part). Still, if
> I look well, the Foundation is claiming bringing knowledge. I see no
> reason why this project should not be started.
>

I don't believe that this should be so complicated.  Please read my personal
apology at the bottom of
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikiversity#Wikiversity_.E2.80.93_Final_Push

The 5 board members are actually living, breathing and thinking human beings
with the full mental capacity to be very proactive for "The Right Thing" to
happen at "The Right Time," and that is today, now and ASAP.  So much has
already been lost in this great delay.  The real shame is that some very good
people have simply walked away from supporting this very good thing.  I've
seen it, because it's in the record.  It's time for the 5 board members to
show some of their own "joyful" enthusiasm to actively bring this good thing
to fruition, or just kill it outright, so that it can find a better home in
this world.

What is The Truth?

Thanks,

Eric

> Ant
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060720/4db63431/attachment-0001.pgp