from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] VFU is utterly beyond hope

body:
On 10/17/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/17/05, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> > "function of VFU is to undelete articles that have been processed
> > properly but shouldn't have been deleted"
> >
> > Huh? What kind of process can be followed properly, yet produce an
> > incorrect result?
>
> An imperfect one.
>
> The AfD process is supposed to determine which articles are deletable.
>  Sometimes even though it's followed completely it ends up deleting
> perfectly good articles.   This is predictable and is why we have an
> undeletion policy.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
As long as you depend on the opinion and input of real people, the
deletion process is going to be flawed. All Wikipedia processes have
processes to undo bad or wrong decisions.

I think content arguments on VFU should be documented in policy. Not
only should it be possible to reverse bad admin actions but also
uninformed votes.

Undeletion should be an option for:
1) Deletion debates with unexplained and possible sheep votes.
2) If additional info comes to light.

Who's going to suggest these and perhaps some other options in policy?
Hopefully, some detailed situations will be acceptable for those who
think VFU is only about process.

--Mgm


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admins, please delete my EYES, per the rules (EOM)

body:
Just stick a speedy deletion tag on your eyes explaining they are not
suitable for Wikipedia and an admin will come by to delete them as
soon as possible.

--Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Why AFD works Great

body:
AFD works pretty well indeed.

It's not infallible or pleasant, but if you want to have the entire
community to have a say in the matter, you can't expect either. It's
always going to be controversial and spreading ill-feelings but that's
just the way it is.

That's why I think we should use VFU to overturn bad AFD decisions in
a limited number of cases, like the recent Prof. Wolters from the
Netherlands. Apparently, some people think it should only be used to
review the process, but we need a process that that makes sure bad
deletions can be undone.

While the initial process may be flawless, voters and the closing
admin may have been ill-informed and that should be reviewable as
well.

"When in doubt don't delete."

--Mgm


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Why is this a problem

body:
On 10/17/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> AFD may have had a concensus when it was deleted, but editors (even
> the ones voting on AFD) are fallible and if like with the professor
> case, they are not fully aware of certain facts they can make bad
> decisions. Just because procedure was followed, it shouldn't be
> automatically assumed, the concensus was correct.
>
> If additional info comes to light on a subject, undeletion should be considered.
>

Look, it's quite simple really.  You look at an article that was
deleted and if you immediately slap your forehead and go "what on
earth were they *on*" then it's a keeper.  If half the people on VFU
are slapping their forehead, then the undeletion policy says we
undelete.  It has nothing whatever to do with process, it's just  a
matter of deciding, as the undeletion policy puts it, whether
Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with or without the article.

What's happened instead is that some people on VFU have decided to go
to extreme lengths to avoid making this decision.  They've gotten
themselves into all kinds of contortions owing to a misplaced
reverence for the "consensus" embodied in the half dozen feckless
dreamers who voted to delete the article in the first place.

In short, they're scared of making decisions on content, so they've
tried to reconstitute VFU as some kind of half-assed appeals court,
almost completely process driven.  I've seen editors on VFU seriously
say stuff like "lovely article, I would have voted keep myself, but
the AfD process was valid so there are no grounds to delete."

Needless to say, such thinking is indicative of a need for a boot to
be applied to the coccyx of the thinker in short order.  What's the
point of an undeletion forum that won't undelete?


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Static HTML dumps

references:
<dir0g4$47q$1@sea.gmane.org> <43541FC9.7080102@wikia.com>
	<dj1oqt$862$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
Tim Starling wrote:
>>I just wanted to be clear that I agree with this completely.  At the
>>bare minimum of a first change, the page
>>http://static.wikipedia.org/
>>
>>Should make it very clear that this dump is not for commercial use with
>>our logo still on it.
>
>
> I thought it did. I wrote:
>
> "There are a number of known bugs, also it is likely that these dumps do
> not fully satisfy the license requirements of the GFDL. Also, note that
> putting one of these dumps on the web unmodified will constitute a
> trademark violation. They are intended for private viewing in an
> intranet or desktop installation."

Ok, my mistake, I'm very very sorry.  I didn't see that.  I apologize
for any confusion.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Meanwhile, AfD grinds on

body:
> > I really don't see any difference between a vote that's explained with a
> > useless "nn" and a vote that's explained with {{nn}} which expands into
> > a paragraph-long genereric dissertation on the subject of notability.
> > Typing those curley brackets doesn't require any extra thought and
> > provides no extra information.
>
> I don't regard nn as useless so I have no problem with them amounting
> to the same thing.
>
> --
> geni
Whether a particular article topic is notable or not depends on the
topic itself can't be explained in a single template. If you're going
to say an article is nn, at least the nominator (or if they don't the
first person to agree with them) will need to explain why the topic is
not notable. Just saying "Delete, nn" or "Delete" agree with
nominator" when the nominator themself wasn't clear isn't informative.

As the professor article shows:
1) Nominator said subject was boring (not a proper criterion) and
non-notable (without explaining why).
2) The other unanimous delete voters either agreed with the nominator,
call it vanity or didn't comment at all.
3) The subject was a professor with published books on his name which
precedent says are keepable.

People can be away and not visit AFD for a period of time while still
caring for the article, but simply not being aware of its existence.
That doesn't mean no one cares about it. And while unanimous and in
process, it's still a wrong decision to delete something as being
vanity or non-notable when precedent clearly shows it's untrue. Had I
known about the article when it was originally up for deletion, I
would've voted keep with a detailed explanation based on policy (with
links).

Also, I'd like to reiterate a point made above: if you don't have the
time to explain your vote, don't vote. AFD is a discussion page with
the aim to get concensus and not a majority vote. When you vote, you
should make an informed decision about the article based on its
content and show it to the closing admin by explaining your vote.
Admins are not clairvoyant and one could easily be vote stuffing, if
you don't explain the admin can't see the difference.

--Mgm


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Arrgh! Please proofread your emails!

body:
On 10/17/05, Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
> The point of my email was to focus on the problem, not the person; that
> is why I snipped off the identifying details. But since you raised that
> issue, I'll say this. I was under the impression that the original poster
> (OP) was a native English speaker, based on the idiomatic fluency of his
> language. Add to that the fact that the OP often makes a logical &
> plausible argument for his opinions, & this blemish of typos & misspellings
> is just a shame. If he's not a native speaker of English, he's fooling me
> now, & would fool me even better if he did just a little more work.
>
> Had this person been another, run-of-the-mill whiner sending us another
> forgettable "I've been banned by a rogue Admin who picks on me because I
> violated the 3RR rule, but I won't mention it because that would make me
> look like the loon I am" email, I wouldn't bother making the effort; at
> most, I'd adjust the settings on my computer & make his email go bye-bye.
>
> I'm trying to offer constructive criticism here. My message was "you
> could be a more effective writer if you did these things", not "your lack
> of grammar & spelling cancels out anything you might have to say; now
> go away." I'm sorry if that was not how it was received.
>
> Geoff
>

Your quotes writen by two different people. The one with the spelling
errors is mine. You are correct in thinking that english is my native
language. The spelling issue is largely to do with dyslexia.
Correcting my spelling tends to be very time consuming so I tend tend
not to worry too much about it outside the article namespace.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Why AFD works Great

body:
On 10/17/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> geni wrote:
>
> >On 10/17/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>1) allow
> >>any user to view the content of deleted pages
> >>
> >>
> >Not legal.
> >
> According to what law?
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
Articles are not only deleted for being crap, sometimes an article is
also deleted for containing possibly libellous information or info
that could violate someone's privacy. Access to such information
should be limited to a minimum of people. Keeping it as historical
evidence in case we need it in legal accusations so we can retrace who
said what and posted what is essential to Wikipedia, which is why
something is rarely completely purged from the database.

--Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Why is this a problem

body:
AFD may have had a concensus when it was deleted, but editors (even
the ones voting on AFD) are fallible and if like with the professor
case, they are not fully aware of certain facts they can make bad
decisions. Just because procedure was followed, it shouldn't be
automatically assumed, the concensus was correct.

If additional info comes to light on a subject, undeletion should be considered.

--Mgm


from_name: Michael Turley

subject: [WikiEN-l] So what do we do about this?

body:
On 10/17/05, Snowspinner <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> [[2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities]]
> and its 8 sub-articles, at present, take up 56085 words. This is five
> times as much as the whole of our coverage on Immanuel Kant.
>
> The articles are, needless to say, utter crap - full of conspiracy
> theory rantings and POV, they read like the collected waste products
> of a month of blogging, which is, not coincidentally, exactly what
> they are.
>
> All of them have been VfDed on two occasions a year or so ago when
> the election actually happened, and survived. In that time, they've
> only gotten worse, more bloated, and more absurd.
>
> What can we do about these articles, and other cases of what we might
> call POV by volume - [[Jack Thompson (attorney)]] and [[Westboro
> Baptist Church]] spring to mind here as well.
>
> My inclination, quite honestly, is to speedy all nine of these
> election articles and let people start over. Whatever comes now, a
> year after the event, cannot possibly be as appallingly bad as this.
>
> And don't just shoot back with {{sofixit}} - there's no good fix. It
> would involve deleting 90% of all 8 of these articles, a change that
> would be quickly reverted anyway, and, with the way my editing has
> been going, probably lead to my getting another RfC, because they
> seem all the rage.
>
> We need some sort of system that's going to untangle this kind of
> mess - something that doesn't rely on enough people with a whit of
> common sense watchlisting the articles and being willing to angrily
> revert the stupid, because, quite frankly, that obviously didn't work
> here.
>
> Thoughts? Jimbo in particular?

Leave them.  Edit them now and then.  Cite references for all your
changes.  Use cleanup tags liberally.  Use NPOV tags as necessary.

As they mature, they'll become better articles.  It's hard to see the
long view of history from this close.  Don't abandon them for later,
but keep in mind how recent and contentious these events are.  Their
historical impact is still being defined.  Immanuel Kant, on the other
hand, has been dead for 201 years, so it's clearly easier to see his
ultimate historical impact.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Meanwhile, AfD grinds on

body:
geni wrote:

>On 10/17/05, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>At the time of this writing en has 776,230 articles. By definition, the
>>articles we're talking about are generally not "popular" - there are
>>only a few people interested in them one way or another. It's very easy
>>to overlook an AfD in all that for a five-day period, I managed to miss
>>the entire existence of the "The Jar" article from its creation through
>>to its deletion over a much longer period than that.
>>
>>
>You relise the logical end point of that is that wikipedia has grown
>beyond our ability to manage it and needs drasticaly downsizeing? Even
>the most extream deletionists would probably feel that that was going
>a little far.
>
>
You've interpreted my position to be exactly the opposite of what I was
aiming for. I'm not saying "Wikipedia is big, so we should be shrinking
it to make it easier to manage with our current methods". I'm saying
"Wikipedia is big, so we should be changing our methods of managing it
to cope with that."

>>Bit of a topic shift there. The template namespace is very different
>>from the article namespace and is not addressed by AfD. There's TfD for
>>that, with its own separate set of criteria for template deletion.
>>
>>
>>
>
>I was refuring too the human habit of minimising expenditure of
>energy. Under the suggested changes we would end up with an impressive
>number of templates for voteing on  AFD
>
>
Oh, I see, this is in reference to your idea to explain votes using
templates such as {{nn}} instead of just typing "nn". Well, I didn't
propose that and in fact I think it would be a bad idea. So I guess
we're in agreement here, for different reasons.

>>Redirects can be changed. This is kind of a side-issue, though, specific
>>to this one particular article.
>>
>>
>
>No you have already admited that not many people would care. What
>makes you think the redirects would be changed?
>
>
I'm not sure what the problem here is, though. This is Wikipedia, the
whole point is that the readers are also editors and so when they spot a
problem they can fix it. If I follow a redirect and it takes me to the
wrong place, I go back and change it. If nobody ever follows the
redirect it won't get changed but it also won't _matter._

I edit plenty of articles about whose subjects I care nothing, BTW. The
random article link is my browser's home URL and I click it whenever I'm
bored with whatever else I was doing. Eventually someone else like me
would stumble across trouble spots even if nobody really cared about them.

>ADF/[[wikipeida:wikiproject decency]] going on for thirty days? You do
>know that dissrupting wikipedia is a blokerble offence.
>
>
I figured I was going to be accused of violating WP:POINT at some point
in the course of this discussion. I was expecting that I'd have to
actually make a related edit on Wikipedia itself before it happened,
though, rather than just proposing an idea for a policy change.

>I don't regard nn as useless so I have no problem with them amounting
>to the same thing.
>
>
Voting just "nn" gives no reasoning _why_ the voter thought the article
was nn. The point of AfD is supposed to be to have a discussion and
reach a consensus, not just tally up votes and go with whichever side
achieves the magic numeric threshold. If an article were to go up for
deletion and fifty people voted "keep, notable!" but one person voted
"delete, this is a hoax. See these websites [1][2][3], it was dreamed up
by a radio shock jock in 2003 at WKRAP in New Serepta as part of a
contest he was running." I would certainly hope that that one
well-support delete vote would blow all fifty of those unsupported keeps
out of the water.


from_name: James R. Johnson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dollar costs and inflation

body:
Not really related to the Placeopedia, but is there some kind of function we
can write wherein the dollar amount adjusts based on inflation?  Something
that cost $50 in 1790 would cost several times that amount today, but a
different amount from its cost 10 years from now.  Is there some
auto-function we could do that would display the original cost, and present
cost, such as:

Original Cost: $50 USD
Present Value of Original Cost: $1500 USD

Something like that.

James


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] So what do we do about this?

body:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Snowspinner wrote:

> [[2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities]]
> and its 8 sub-articles, at present, take up 56085 words. This is five
> times as much as the whole of our coverage on Immanuel Kant.
>
> The articles are, needless to say, utter crap - full of conspiracy
> theory rantings and POV, they read like the collected waste products
> of a month of blogging, which is, not coincidentally, exactly what
> they are.
>
The problem with this article is similar in many ways to that around
many hot-button topics (for example, Israel & Palestine), but with its
own unique twist: one side believes the entire topic is -- if I may
borrow your words -- utter crap, & not worth space in Wikipedia; the
other side believes that their POV is undeniable truth, & is equally
uncompromising about their stance. With this divisive atmosphere, it's
no wonder that we can't find someone eager to moderate this dispute.

(I tried, months ago. I mentioned this months ago on the
Talk page of the article, suggesting that the article ought to cite
these reports, the various recounts, & the published allegations that
the voting machines used were not reliable; I was told that although
this was a good idea, it wasn't what the folks currently writing the
article wanted. Being one editor against three or four, I decided to
tackle other topics instead.)

Which is sad, because this *is* a legitimite topic for an article,
because there has been a fair number of allegations that there were
irregularities in that election. These allegations are not limited
to blogs & webforums: I know of at least one reporter writing for
the BBC who has written extensively on this matter.

And this is sad because a very partisan Wiki -- www.dkospedia.org --
has a far better explanation (& far more NPOV) of the matter than we
do, with ample citations, clear explanations, & is quite concise.
(See [[2004 Ohio Irregularities]] at dkospedia.)

If nothing else, these allegations need to be documented & explained
as a service to our readers. We have articles on internet memes,
Kennedy assassination theories, revisionist histories: so why not an
article on this topic? Admittedly, it is a controversial topic,
& this article probably won't find a form acceptible to everyone
for a long time -- but no one has suggested that we wipe the slate
clean for the Israel & Palestine-related articles, & we have tolerated
the flamewars there.

Geoff


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Why AFD works Great

body:
geni wrote:

>On 10/18/05, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I hadnt been taking much notice of this thread, but in my irregular
>>series
>>on Victorian philanthropists I got around to [[Sydney Waterlow]] and
>>happened to notice some deleted edits. Someone had only a few months ago
>>linked a URL of a biography to an article that was redlinked from a few
>>places (and possibly in requested encyclopaedic articles for all I know,
>>given the date not unlikely to be in Brittanica 1911 though I havent
>>checked). This was speedied shortly after. I think this wasnt a good
>>decision really - whoever speedied it could have written a stub in a few
>>minutes from the information in the link. The link stuck in by an
>>anon IP
>>seems more like a cry for help ("please write about this") than a speedy
>>candidate.
>>
>>Justinc
>>
>>
>
>It was probably speedied by someone on RC patrol. Lots of articles
>turn up that are nothing more than a link. These isn't really time to
>do anything about them (and it isn't as if cleanup  is crying out for
>more articles).~~~~
>
>
Ah!!! Now I understand the function of "speedy".  It's there for the
convenience of those who are so overworked that they haven't got time to
write "nn delete". 8-)

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Why is this a problem

body:
On 10/17/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>
> >AFD may have had a concensus when it was deleted, but editors (even
> >the ones voting on AFD) are fallible and if like with the professor
> >case, they are not fully aware of certain facts they can make bad
> >decisions. Just because procedure was followed, it shouldn't be
> >automatically assumed, the concensus was correct.
> >
> >If additional info comes to light on a subject, undeletion should be considered.
> >
> And how is a person who did not see the original article supposed to
> know if his information is "additional"?
>
> Ec
>
Usually, the person who nominates an article for VFU says so, after
which an admin can check the history or temporarily undelete it so
everyone can see the info mentioned was indeed "additional". That's
the beauty of edit histories.

--Mgm


from_name: Angela

subject: [WikiEN-l] Placeopedia

body:
Placeopedia is an online application which integrates Google Maps
images and Wikipedia encyclopedia articles.See
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placeopedia>
and<http://www.placeopedia.com/>.

The Board are currently working on a logo licensing contract which
would permit such sites to use the Wikipedia logo.

A new mailing list for Placeopedia has recently been created at
<http://www.mysociety.org/mailman/listinfo/mysociety-maps> and they
would welcome input from Wikipedians on various aspects of the site.

For example, some issues already raised are whether links to
Placeopedia should be added automatically to all Wikipedia articles
that have a corresponding entry in Placeopedia. There is already a
template for this on the English Wikipedia
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Placeopedia>) but so far any
links have only been added manually.

Another issue is whether users of Placepedia should be able to add
categories to Wikipedia directly from Placeopedia.

If you have an interest in maps, please join the mailing list to help
answer these Wikipedia-related questions.
<http://www.mysociety.org/mailman/listinfo/mysociety-maps>

Angela.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Placeopedia


from_name: Alphax

subject: [WikiEN-l] Why AFD works Great

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Grease Monkee wrote:
> AFD functions well,

My bullshit detector just went off...

> and I'm surprised to see the never ending stream of
> emails to this list complaining about the process. My only suggestion to
> improve AFD is for it to have its own mailing list.
>
> Some of AFD's features I find particularly appealing ...
>
> * efficiently disposes of sewage - has a very low error rate
> * satisfies the appetites of certain editors who crave visibility, drama and
> social interaction
> * is a wonderful soap box for bombasts to opine, prognosticate and listen to
> themselves
> * distracts the Fucking Idiots from more important parts of the encyclopedia
> * provides a place for these animals to gnash their teeth and hump each
> other
>
> ...while the rest of us write an encyclopedia.
>

And they scare away new contributors as well.

> Most of the complaining has been about the AFD process, when the real
> problem is the behavior of the editors who are drawn there. If AFD was
> reworked to eliminate the possibility of bitching, whining and sniveling,
> this behavior might just move elsewhere in our project.
>
> The current process, amazingly, motivates volunteer editors to passionately
> evaluate tens of thousands articles per year. And while it's not perfect and
> can probably be improved, it's pretty damn good.
>

You. Have. Got. To. Be. Joking.

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ1O/G7MAAH8MeUlWAQg53gf+JpXAIhQ2P5Kh6f+E+EB/BQwtI435Z5QF
nS7r1Q9zAFQ1Wo8AZAE2aNYOAmQPAHWYAKuYz3u070UI/DkioQ/4CieELdW+LN63
N6IGYk3I5CJC9CCWR41LDRxueICTjtLJP4e6Aa9GGSvIPCjVE2rWOA7/04tSkd0C
2OvgpVvCf1jvUXqYE2aJ+ZXHCi5AwWlgV7oYuL69pBE2hT5HE5Jt+wd/kr5kccPQ
7s1NDZZ8nKDVbkmFBhoxPn2LqAj3Eb3wdd829OhzVzkHtl6Rk9fHdfRTDefUe2iC
ZrvRZMR1yuvVU1N8ZCrkaeag+0yy8meC3SR4CuPWLVBOBTFE5hsxqQ==
=2ug6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Snowspinner

subject: [WikiEN-l] So what do we do about this?

body:
I apologize, in my counting of words, I missed [[2004 U.S. election
voting controversies]], and its 2374 words. The proper word count of
articles on the 2004 election and its alleged rigging is 58,459.

-Snowspinner

On Oct 17, 2005, at 9:40 PM, Snowspinner wrote:

> [[2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities]]
> and its 8 sub-articles, at present, take up 56085 words. This is
> five times as much as the whole of our coverage on Immanuel Kant.
>
> The articles are, needless to say, utter crap - full of conspiracy
> theory rantings and POV, they read like the collected waste
> products of a month of blogging, which is, not coincidentally,
> exactly what they are.
>
> All of them have been VfDed on two occasions a year or so ago when
> the election actually happened, and survived. In that time, they've
> only gotten worse, more bloated, and more absurd.
>
> What can we do about these articles, and other cases of what we
> might call POV by volume - [[Jack Thompson (attorney)]] and
> [[Westboro Baptist Church]] spring to mind here as well.
>
> My inclination, quite honestly, is to speedy all nine of these
> election articles and let people start over. Whatever comes now, a
> year after the event, cannot possibly be as appallingly bad as this.
>
> And don't just shoot back with {{sofixit}} - there's no good fix.
> It would involve deleting 90% of all 8 of these articles, a change
> that would be quickly reverted anyway, and, with the way my editing
> has been going, probably lead to my getting another RfC, because
> they seem all the rage.
>
> We need some sort of system that's going to untangle this kind of
> mess - something that doesn't rely on enough people with a whit of
> common sense watchlisting the articles and being willing to angrily
> revert the stupid, because, quite frankly, that obviously didn't
> work here.
>
> Thoughts? Jimbo in particular?
>
> -Snowspinner
> _______________________________________________
> 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] So what do we do about this?

body:
On Oct 17, 2005, at 11:29 PM, Michael Turley wrote:
>
> Leave them.  Edit them now and then.  Cite references for all your
> changes.  Use cleanup tags liberally.  Use NPOV tags as necessary.
>
> As they mature, they'll become better articles.  It's hard to see the
> long view of history from this close.  Don't abandon them for later,
> but keep in mind how recent and contentious these events are.  Their
> historical impact is still being defined.  Immanuel Kant, on the other
> hand, has been dead for 201 years, so it's clearly easier to see his
> ultimate historical impact.
>

A nice sentiment, but in this case naive - I slapped dispute tags on
them, and I'm already being threatened with reverts. I fully expect
to be reverted by morning. If one cannot even insert a dispute tag
without starting an edit war, how do you propose that the articles
will be fixed?

Over time? They're as bad now as they were ten months ago, if not
worse. Articles do not generally fix in the form of consolidation -
as was pointed out in the cases of the [[Bill Gates]] and [[Jane
Fonda]] article.

This is not a situation where the usual platitudes about the Wiki
process are going to do any good. The articles are scrupulously
referenced. The problem is that the references are the paranoid
rantings of a bunch of bloggers and activist groups that no
mainstream sources considered worth refuting. It's the same problem
we had on the [[Lyndon LaRouche]] articles where we finally had to
declare that LaRouche sources were all well and good, but just didn't
count as sources for the purposes of verifiability.

-Snowspinner


subject: [WikiEN-l] Why AFD works Great

body:
On 10/18/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 10/17/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 10/17/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > > According to what law?
> > > Ec
> >
> > IANAL
> >
> > But I suspect the digital millenium copyright act is in there somewhere
>
>
> If anything, the DMCA would be a *defense* against a lawsuit over this sort
> of thing. You don't have to be a lawyer, but you should at least know
> something about the law before you make a statement that something would be
> illegal.
>
> --
> > geni

Not really because we would have acknowlaged that we know it exists
and we know it is a problem.

--
geni


list: foundation-l

from_name: martin.mai at split.uni-bamberg.de

subject: [Foundation-l] automated response

body:
Abwesenheitsnotiz

Hallo,

bin bis Freitag in Modena
antworte danach...

Martin


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] automated response


from_name: Justin Cormack

subject: [WikiEN-l] Why AFD works Great

body:
I hadnt been taking much notice of this thread, but in my irregular
series
on Victorian philanthropists I got around to [[Sydney Waterlow]] and
happened to notice some deleted edits. Someone had only a few months ago
linked a URL of a biography to an article that was redlinked from a few
places (and possibly in requested encyclopaedic articles for all I know,
given the date not unlikely to be in Brittanica 1911 though I havent
checked). This was speedied shortly after. I think this wasnt a good
decision really - whoever speedied it could have written a stub in a few
minutes from the information in the link. The link stuck in by an
anon IP
seems more like a cry for help ("please write about this") than a speedy
candidate.

Justinc


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [WikiEN-l] NTL

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>
>>On 10/17/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Note that the NTL problem has been solved (presumably through some
>>>horribly ugly special cases in the MediaWiki code) -

It's not an ugly special case, we already used the X-Forwarded-For
header to determine the IP address for users editing via our own squids
(i.e. everyone). It was just a matter of adding extra trusted proxies,
and adding some validation for cases where external proxies randomly
send invalid addresses like 127.0.0.1, which unfortunately some of them do.

>>My understanding is that NTL passes the client IP via a standard
>>protocol and MediaWiki simply interprets it in the standard manner.
>>The only place where it gets hairy is that, as I understand it, some
>>anonymizing proxies also use this protocol and forward a spoofed IP,
>>so you do need to maintain a list of proxies that can be trusted.

No, the problem is not some anonymizing proxies, the problem is that
anyone at all could pretend to a proxy, by just typing headers into
telnet or netcat.

> Semi-standard - it uses an X-Forwarded-From header and sometimes it
> reverses the order of the octets (for no good reason).

Nothing in MediaWiki should reverse the order of the octets, where have
you seen that? Anyway, it is indeed only semi-standard, hence the X
prefix. It's a defacto standard promulgated by Squid.

> That said, I just spotted a MARMOT sock (User:Captain Kreuk and a few
> others) with his IP showing as the NTL proxy address, not his actual
> address. Bother.
>
> (cc'd to wikitech-l - is this a reportable bug, or hadn't the
> NTL-checking code kicked in at that point?)

It's a bit hard to tell without knowing the IP address and how long ago
it occurred.

-- Tim Starling


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Placeopedia

body:
>
> I put latitude and longitude on a bunch of my images on the
> commons. It'd be
> nice if there was a standard for that, and we could probably tag a
> large
> portion of the images there.

How do you do that out of interest? GPS? Can you give an example URL.

Lots of UK place articles have UK grid refs and so on which could be
extracted,
although they need conversion. I would add more geo data if there
were standard
templates etc. I do have a GPS card somewhere, but I wish my camera
had it built in.

I am very keen on adding geolocation data to wikipedia. The google
maps interface
is nasty though - more interested in building it into WP itself.


subject: [WikiEN-l] So what do we do about this?

body:
On 10/18/05, Snowspinner <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> My inclination, quite honestly, is to speedy all nine of these
> election articles and let people start over. Whatever comes now, a
> year after the event, cannot possibly be as appallingly bad as this.

> -Snowspinner

don't be too certian after a year it will probably only be the real
fanatics who do any real creation.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Why AFD works Great

body:
On 10/18/05, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>
> I hadnt been taking much notice of this thread, but in my irregular
> series
> on Victorian philanthropists I got around to [[Sydney Waterlow]] and
> happened to notice some deleted edits. Someone had only a few months ago
> linked a URL of a biography to an article that was redlinked from a few
> places (and possibly in requested encyclopaedic articles for all I know,
> given the date not unlikely to be in Brittanica 1911 though I havent
> checked). This was speedied shortly after. I think this wasnt a good
> decision really - whoever speedied it could have written a stub in a few
> minutes from the information in the link. The link stuck in by an
> anon IP
> seems more like a cry for help ("please write about this") than a speedy
> candidate.
>
> Justinc

It was probably speedied by someone on RC patrol. Lots of articles
turn up that are nothing more than a link. These isn't really time to
do anything about them (and it isn't as if cleanup  is crying out for
more articles).~~~~

--
geni


body:
On 10/18/05, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:

> I am very keen on adding geolocation data to wikipedia. The google
> maps interface
> is nasty though - more interested in building it into WP itself.

It would have to be a seperate wikiproject since it isn't really part
of createing an enclyopedia.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Why AFD works Great

body:
On 18 Oct 2005, at 02:51, geni wrote:

> On 10/18/05, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I hadnt been taking much notice of this thread, but in my irregular
>> series
>> on Victorian philanthropists I got around to [[Sydney Waterlow]] and
>> happened to notice some deleted edits. Someone had only a few
>> months ago
>> linked a URL of a biography to an article that was redlinked from
>> a few
>> places (and possibly in requested encyclopaedic articles for all I
>> know,
>> given the date not unlikely to be in Brittanica 1911 though I havent
>> checked). This was speedied shortly after. I think this wasnt a good
>> decision really - whoever speedied it could have written a stub in
>> a few
>> minutes from the information in the link. The link stuck in by an
>> anon IP
>> seems more like a cry for help ("please write about this") than a
>> speedy
>> candidate.
>>
>> Justinc
>>
>
> It was probably speedied by someone on RC patrol. Lots of articles
> turn up that are nothing more than a link. These isn't really time to
> do anything about them (and it isn't as if cleanup  is crying out for
> more articles).~~~~

Fair enough - my though is if we get 10 times as many people on patrol
can we use it as a requested articles feed? It might need a process,
or even just a feed into requested articles (where the URL could have
been dumped). I admit I have stopped looking at new articles now though.

Justinc


body:
On 18 Oct 2005, at 02:54, geni wrote:

> On 10/18/05, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I am very keen on adding geolocation data to wikipedia. The google
>> maps interface
>> is nasty though - more interested in building it into WP itself.
>>
>
> It would have to be a seperate wikiproject since it isn't really part
> of createing an enclyopedia.

The location of things is encyclopaedic. I am very interested in
different interfaces to encyclopaedic material, based around image
and location, which print could never do for space and cost reasons.
Not a short term project though, although I had a few ideas to
play with once browsers do native SVG.

Justinc


subject: [WikiEN-l] Why AFD works Great

body:
On 10/18/05, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
> Fair enough - my though is if we get 10 times as many people on patrol
> can we use it as a requested articles feed? It might need a process,
> or even just a feed into requested articles (where the URL could have
> been dumped). I admit I have stopped looking at new articles now though.
>
> Justinc

If we had 10 times as many people on patrol so many things would
change it is not really posible to make predictions.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Why AFD works Great

body:
On 18 Oct 2005, at 03:02, geni wrote:

> On 10/18/05, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>
>> Fair enough - my though is if we get 10 times as many people on
>> patrol
>> can we use it as a requested articles feed? It might need a process,
>> or even just a feed into requested articles (where the URL could have
>> been dumped). I admit I have stopped looking at new articles now
>> though.
>>
>> Justinc
>>
>
> If we had 10 times as many people on patrol so many things would
> change it is not really posible to make predictions.

Well I suspect almost everyone does what I does and gives up in despair.
But this is just an organizational matter. If all new articles were
(automatically?) classified into categories (eg initially unreviewed
new articles), then manually classified into say requests, stubs for
classification, ones to list on the front page new articles bit, ones
that need copyediting, then I might get involved. As it is there is just
a big heap of new stuff as far as I can see, and every time I look I
run away. (Maybe I am wrong; let me know).

Justinc


subject: [WikiEN-l] Why AFD works Great

body:
On 18 Oct 2005, at 03:14, Delirium wrote:

> Justin Cormack wrote:
>
>
>> Fair enough - my though is if we get 10 times as many people on
>> patrol
>> can we use it as a requested articles feed? It might need a process,
>> or even just a feed into requested articles (where the URL could have
>> been dumped). I admit I have stopped looking at new articles now
>> though.
>>
>
> I do occasionally use it as a requested-articles feed, and have
> written several fairly lengthy articles starting from sub-stubs.
> Honestly, though, there is no shortage of requested articles, so
> the link-only articles aren't really providing much of a service---
> if I wanted to write an article and was not sure on what to write,
> there is a very lengthy page already on Wikipedia for requested
> articles.  I'm not inclined to allow people who create link-only
> articles to get their requests somehow automatically moved to the
> front of the queue just because they're not allowed to be deleted.
>
> Which is to say, I half-agree---if people are so inclined, feel
> free to turn a sub-stub into a real article.  But if not, it's no
> great loss if it gets deleted.  If you feel particularly badly
> about it, add it to [[Wikipedia:Requested articles]] after you
> delete it.

Fair enough. I think I will undelete the original request when I
create them like I did for that one, so
that the person knows that they were noticed, as an odd form of
encouragement.

Justinc


list: wikitech-l

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Size of all dumps

body:
Jeremy Dunck wrote:
> On 10/17/05, Jakob Voss <jakob.voss at nichtich.de> wrote:
>
>>Hi!
>>
>>Once there was the size of all Wikipedia database dumps at
>>download.wikipedia.org.
>
>
> I was just pondering this yesterday.  Samuel is master with 6x73 GB=
> 438 GB.  Of course, that's not in dump form.
>
> Jakob, this ties in with the earlier request for wikipedia-by-mail.  I
> was thinking of doing a Fundable.org drive for an array so that I
> could serve those requests, but perhaps using the Tool server makes
> more sense...

Samuel's InnoDB data files are about 290 GB, but it's likely most of
that is free space. There's also about 100 GB distributed across our
external storage DBs; the hypothesized free space in samuel is because
we moved a lot of the text out of it and into external storage. It's all
compressed with gzip.

The current total size of all the pages_full.xml.bz2 files from the
latest dump is 14 GB. In total, the wikipedia directory on the download
server is using 236 GB, thanks mostly to image tarballs and poorly
compressed copies of the text.

-- Tim Starling


subject: [Wikitech-l] automated response


list: commons-l

subject: [Commons-l] automated response


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] So what do we do about this?

body:
What needs to be done is to remove all information that lacks a
source in a reputable reference. I know that is burdensome. Start
small on the most egregious example and enter into dispute resolution
with whoever attempts to revert; I am not suggesting you revert back
even once. As someone once said, "Anyone is entitled to their own
opinion; no one is entitled to their own facts."  There were
irregularities, one occurred in the county I live in, Saguache
County, Colorado; here the district judge removed the County Clerk
from supervision of the election due to irregularities. That incident
was richly documented in the local papers. Rank speculation is quite
another matter.

Fred

On Oct 17, 2005, at 7:40 PM, Snowspinner wrote:

> [[2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities]]
> and its 8 sub-articles, at present, take up 56085 words. This is
> five times as much as the whole of our coverage on Immanuel Kant.
>
> The articles are, needless to say, utter crap - full of conspiracy
> theory rantings and POV, they read like the collected waste
> products of a month of blogging, which is, not coincidentally,
> exactly what they are.
>
> All of them have been VfDed on two occasions a year or so ago when
> the election actually happened, and survived. In that time, they've
> only gotten worse, more bloated, and more absurd.
>
> What can we do about these articles, and other cases of what we
> might call POV by volume - [[Jack Thompson (attorney)]] and
> [[Westboro Baptist Church]] spring to mind here as well.
>
> My inclination, quite honestly, is to speedy all nine of these
> election articles and let people start over. Whatever comes now, a
> year after the event, cannot possibly be as appallingly bad as this.
>
> And don't just shoot back with {{sofixit}} - there's no good fix.
> It would involve deleting 90% of all 8 of these articles, a change
> that would be quickly reverted anyway, and, with the way my editing
> has been going, probably lead to my getting another RfC, because
> they seem all the rage.
>
> We need some sort of system that's going to untangle this kind of
> mess - something that doesn't rely on enough people with a whit of
> common sense watchlisting the articles and being willing to angrily
> revert the stupid, because, quite frankly, that obviously didn't
> work here.
>
> Thoughts? Jimbo in particular?
>
> -Snowspinner
> _______________________________________________
> 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] So what do we do about this?

body:
Exactly, but are we all going to be bullied by POV warriors?

Fred

On Oct 17, 2005, at 7:56 PM, Carbonite wrote:

> I wish you the best of luck with trying to improve these articles,
> but I
> hope you're up for a challenge. The amount of resistance to even the
> smallest change in these articles is simply staggering. I can't
> even imagine
> what would happen if they were speedied. Fire and brimstone
> instantly comes
> to mind.
>
> Good luck!
> Carbonite


subject: [WikiEN-l] So what do we do about this?

body:
The blogs are not reputable sources in most instances and ought not
be there.

Fred

On Oct 17, 2005, at 8:15 PM, Snowspinner wrote:

>
> On Oct 17, 2005, at 9:49 PM, geni wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> don't be too certian after a year it will probably only be the real
>> fanatics who do any real creation.
>>
>>
>
>
> Yeah, but they'll have to go combing the archives of blogs instead
> of the front pages. It'll slow them down.
>
> -Snowspinner
> _______________________________________________
> 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] So what do we do about this?

body:
Exactly, excellent parallel; although, this POV bunch is a bit bigger
and better organized. And intimidating.

Fred

On Oct 17, 2005, at 11:16 PM, Snowspinner wrote:

> This is not a situation where the usual platitudes about the Wiki
> process are going to do any good. The articles are scrupulously
> referenced. The problem is that the references are the paranoid
> rantings of a bunch of bloggers and activist groups that no
> mainstream sources considered worth refuting. It's the same problem
> we had on the [[Lyndon LaRouche]] articles where we finally had to
> declare that LaRouche sources were all well and good, but just
> didn't count as sources for the purposes of verifiability.


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
James R. Johnson wrote:
> Not really related to the Placeopedia, but is there some kind of function we
> can write wherein the dollar amount adjusts based on inflation?  Something
> that cost $50 in 1790 would cost several times that amount today, but a
> different amount from its cost 10 years from now.  Is there some
> auto-function we could do that would display the original cost, and present
> cost, such as:
>
> Original Cost: $50 USD
> Present Value of Original Cost: $1500 USD
>
> Something like that.
>
> James
Hoi,
Would that not be a rather depressing function?? Then again, for people
with another currency the same applies; you would like to know how much
it is in the current currency .. the Euro in my case.
Thanks,
    Gerard


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Meanwhile, AfD grinds on

body:
On 10/18/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/18/05, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> > Voting just "nn" gives no reasoning _why_ the voter thought the article
> > was nn. The point of AfD is supposed to be to have a discussion and
> > reach a consensus, not just tally up votes and go with whichever side
> > achieves the magic numeric threshold. If an article were to go up for
> > deletion and fifty people voted "keep, notable!" but one person voted
> > "delete, this is a hoax. See these websites [1][2][3], it was dreamed up
> > by a radio shock jock in 2003 at WKRAP in New Serepta as part of a
> > contest he was running." I would certainly hope that that one
> > well-support delete vote would blow all fifty of those unsupported keeps
> > out of the water.
>
> I'd certainly hope so.

I'd hope the article were kept, and changed to explain the hoax, since
obviously it's a notable hoax.

Anthony


from_name: Guettarda

subject: [WikiEN-l] So what do we do about this?

body:
On 10/18/05, Snowspinner <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 17, 2005, at 11:29 PM, Michael Turley wrote:
> >
> > Leave them. Edit them now and then. Cite references for all your
> > changes. Use cleanup tags liberally. Use NPOV tags as necessary.
> >
>
> A nice sentiment, but in this case naive - I slapped dispute tags on
> them, and I'm already being threatened with reverts. I fully expect
> to be reverted by morning. If one cannot even insert a dispute tag
> without starting an edit war, how do you propose that the articles
> will be fixed?

Obviously just sticking an {{NPOV}} tag on a politically charged article is
going to get that response. Like any other use, if you fail to document what
it is you take issue with people are going to revert the tag - as they
should rightly do. You know that as well as I do.

Ian


subject: [WikiEN-l] Meanwhile, AfD grinds on

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>I'd hope the article were kept, and changed to explain the hoax, since
>obviously it's a notable hoax.
>
>
Yeah, I tried to throw that into the hypothetical example but it was
getting rather large and complicated. I hoped nobody would call me on
it. :) The basic point remains, though - the vote with backing evidence
and detailed arguments should trump any number of ones without those.


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Meanwhile, AfD grinds on

body:
On 10/18/05, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> Voting just "nn" gives no reasoning _why_ the voter thought the article
> was nn. The point of AfD is supposed to be to have a discussion and
> reach a consensus, not just tally up votes and go with whichever side
> achieves the magic numeric threshold. If an article were to go up for
> deletion and fifty people voted "keep, notable!" but one person voted
> "delete, this is a hoax. See these websites [1][2][3], it was dreamed up
> by a radio shock jock in 2003 at WKRAP in New Serepta as part of a
> contest he was running." I would certainly hope that that one
> well-support delete vote would blow all fifty of those unsupported keeps
> out of the water.

I'd certainly hope so.


subject: [WikiEN-l] So what do we do about this?

body:
On 10/18/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Actually I stopped by the talk page of that article this morning, and
> Snowspinner has done a very good job of listing and critiquing every
> one of nearly 70 references, most of which seem to have been blogs,
> agitprop websites, and Michael Moore.
> _____________________________________

Yeah, after I sorted through all the articles I found his comments too (on
one of them - I opened the while series and started looking at talk page
after talk page with no comments). In addition, if yoiu look at the one talk
page where this came up, the citations only came up after Ryan took him to
task for the tag, and it doesn't look like this conversation has gone any
further, so with regards to his comments above "A nice sentiment, but in
this case naive - I slapped dispute tags on them, and I'm already being
threatened with reverts", my comments are still valid - if someone slaps
disputed tags on an article without explaining the dispute, taking issue
with them is the correct thing to do.

Ian


subject: [WikiEN-l] So what do we do about this?

body:
On 10/18/05, Snowspinner <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It's the same problem
> we had on the [[Lyndon LaRouche]] articles where we finally had to
> declare that LaRouche sources were all well and good, but just didn't
> count as sources for the purposes of verifiability.

Is is just me, or does it seem needlessly inflammatory to compare solid
editors - admins, no less - to the LaRouchies?

Ian


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Placeopedia

body:
"Angela" wrote:
[snip]
> For example, some issues already raised are whether links to
> Placeopedia should be added automatically to all Wikipedia articles
> that have a corresponding entry in Placeopedia. There is already a
> template for this on the English Wikipedia
> (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Placeopedia>) but so far any
> links have only been added manually.

Specifically in connection with this (I created the template and I suspect
most of the additions are mine to date), is there any particular problem
with adding this template to each article referenced from Placeopedia?

Someone on their list said we should be using a proper geo-thingy system,
but I'm not wanting to wait for ages until they decide what they're doing, I
want to do stuff now.

As a point of principle, would it be OK if some took it upon themselves to
obtain some sort of list from Placeopedia and instruct a bot to add the
appropriate links to the appropriate article?

Please note that I'm not volunteering myself at this stage, since my
Internet access is strictly work-based and therefore does not allow the time
to do it properly. I just want to know whether this idea is overstepping the
bounds.

I know we can't do the equivalent with say IMDb, but this is because of
copyright problems. Placeopedia is using Wikipedia data to connect through
to Google Maps: I can't see that there would be an equivalent problem.

I would hate for an opportunity like this, of getting something really
useful up and running really quickly, to be lost while we dither.
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Funny joke...

body:
On 10/18/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Apparantly community consensus doens't include putting thought into
> closing deletion debates; admins are supposed to count the numbers and
> press the magic button.
>
> Draw circle on desk. Bang head here.

No - the point is that, like any other "elected" position, you need to shut
up about your actual opinions, recite platitudes, and kss babies. NEVER
reveal your true intentions to make the world a better place, or you will be
shot down.

Think about it like this - I think that AfD is a cesspool, and I have no
interest in closing debates. I don't want to be attacks for making judgement
calls the way that Tony is. So, to parallel your experience, if I said that
I don't want to close AfD debates, I assume that people would say "he
doesn't want AfD debates to ever get closed, he wants them to stay open
forever". :)

I think I will join you in banging my head on the desk...as soon as I rush
off and vote in your RFA - or vote a second time if I've voted already -
what name should I choose for my sockpuppet
[[User:Guettarda'sSocktoVoteTwiceInRFAsAndAfDs]]? :)

Ian


from_name: Arrakistor

subject: [Wikitech-l] Problem with linking images

body:
I  am  unable  to  locate  any  code  that would allow me to create an
internal  link  represented  by an internal image. I am also unable to
disable the wiki code to allow proper html which would circumvent this
problem,  as  nowiki does not work on this code. Here is an example in
plain html which i would like to implement in my wiki:

I just want to be able to click on a jpeg image in my wiki and have it
take  me  to  a  specific  wiki  entry,  like  a menu. Internal image,
internal  link, why is this an issue? Further, I cannot understand why
in any of the link or image syntax help areas it not only doesn't tell
how to do this, but it doesn't even mention if it is possible or not.

Help.

Best Regards, Steve


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Why AFD works Great

body:
On 10/18/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> Ah!!! Now I understand the function of "speedy".  It's there for the
> convenience of those who are so overworked that they haven't got time to
> write "nn delete". 8-)
>
> Ec

No it's for those who don't have time to write "crap delete"

--
geni


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 18/10/05, James R. Johnson <modean52 at comcast.net> wrote:
> Not really related to the Placeopedia, but is there some kind of function we
> can write wherein the dollar amount adjusts based on inflation?  Something
> that cost $50 in 1790 would cost several times that amount today, but a
> different amount from its cost 10 years from now.  Is there some
> auto-function we could do that would display the original cost, and present
> cost, such as:
>
> Original Cost: $50 USD
> Present Value of Original Cost: $1500 USD

The problem is that this is an art more than a science. The "1865"
conversion rate would work okay for seeing how much a cup of coffee
cost then - but it'd give an impressively misleading equivalent value
for the Alaska Purchase.

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Placeopedia

body:
On 10/18/05, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> I would hate for an opportunity like this, of getting something really
> useful up and running really quickly, to be lost while we dither.

I don't see how it's going to be lost, is there another free
encyclopedia that they'll partner with if we don't slather wikipedia
with externals to them?

I suspect that, like myself, many people have a hard time getting
excited about filling up wikipedia with more externals rather than
enhancing the value of Wikipedia directly.

Geodata in articles about subjects which have a definite location
belongs in Wikipedia, that much is clear.  I don't think its at all
clear that we need to undertake a large effort to integrate with a
third party site which is providing a service we should ultimately
provide ourselves.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Placeopedia


from_name: Joseph Reagle

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wale's explaination of the Stallman incident

body:
I've recently been digging in to some of the Wikipedia history (including
pointing links from the Wikipedia timeline to Wayback machine's versions of
the Nupedia list) but the one link I haven't been able to find is Wale's
statement about the confusion resulting from Stallman's announcement:
 ? http://slashdot.org/articles/01/01/20/0319231_F.shtml ? ? ?->
  http://www.themestream.com/gspd_browse/browse/view_article.gsp?c_id=299223
Unfortunately, that page is just ads and links now and Jimbo doesn't seem to
have a copy and he recommended this list as a possible source.


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] wiktionary xml dump

body:
Sergey Samoylov wrote:
> Hi there....
>
> I think that data from Wiktionary dump (
> http://download.wikimedia.org/wiktionary/en/pages_current.xml.bz2)<http://download.wikimedia.org/wiktionary/en/pages_current.xml.bz2>
> is not correct.

That's right. Please read the list archives.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20051018/554a8626/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: dumps failing for en.wp

body:
Folke Behrens wrote:
> 2005/10/17, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com>:
>>Don't use any of the 20051017 dumps; they're all suspect.
>
> Then please delete them.

I want to keep them around for bug comparison at the moment, but I have
gone ahead and renamed them with a ".broken" extension which I hope will
discourage people from downloading them. ;)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20051018/7de55efb/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Andrew Gray wrote:

>On 18/10/05, James R. Johnson <modean52 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Not really related to the Placeopedia, but is there some kind of function we
>>can write wherein the dollar amount adjusts based on inflation?  Something
>>that cost $50 in 1790 would cost several times that amount today, but a
>>different amount from its cost 10 years from now.  Is there some
>>auto-function we could do that would display the original cost, and present
>>cost, such as:
>>
>>Original Cost: $50 USD
>>Present Value of Original Cost: $1500 USD
>>
>>
>The problem is that this is an art more than a science. The "1865"
>conversion rate would work okay for seeing how much a cup of coffee
>cost then - but it'd give an impressively misleading equivalent value
>for the Alaska Purchase.
>
>
There are certainly any number of government publications (and
presumably websites) from around the world that give a wide range of
economic indexes for inflation, employment, population, interest, GDP,
etc.  The application of these national indexes to specific locations
would produce totally unreliable results.  If no ships were bringing
coffee to Alaska in 1865 it's value there may have been considerably
higher than elsewhere, and those inhabitants may have needed to be
satisfied with a bitter blend of chicory.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Funny joke...

body:
Alphax wrote:

>Apparantly people who think that consensus on AfD means "70-75% with at
>least 10 clear non-sock/meatpuppet votes, with votes without clear
>reason being disregarded" aren't suitable to be admins.
>
>AfD is evil. Long may it and the people who play there burn in wikihell.
>
Looks like we need more admins like Ed Poor with the courage to confront
that gang of fools.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Funny joke...

body:
geni wrote:

>On 10/18/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Apparantly people who think that consensus on AfD means "70-75% with at
>>least 10 clear non-sock/meatpuppet votes, with votes without clear
>>reason being disregarded" aren't suitable to be admins.
>>
>>
>Admins can think what they like. Just as long as they follow policy
>and comunity consensus when useing admin powers.
>
I could agree if it was clear that "community consensus" really was
that, and not some catch phrase invented for the purpose of winning an
argument.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] So what do we do about this?

body:
charles matthews wrote:

>> Admittedly, it is a controversial topic,
>> & this article probably won't find a form acceptible to everyone
>> for a long time -- but no one has suggested that we wipe the slate
>> clean for the Israel & Palestine-related articles, & we have tolerated
>> the flamewars there.
>>
>> Geoff
>
> I can't say I care that much.  US politics is surely too much covered
> on WP (but not in terms of its importance); i.e. turgidity rules.
>
> Yes, there should be more on Kant.  Let's have it, please.  (I can
> claim to have started the [[neo-kantianism]] article, not that I have
> the slightest expertise).

I kan't say that I support the notion that an excess of articles on US
politics is an adequate excuse for having no more, but then I tend to
resist turgid pronouncements. ;-)   That dosn't mean that Cant articles
aren't valuable either.

> The only real way to deal with the phenomenon of 'bloat', I think, is
> not to change any basic rules - that ought to be resisted, policy
> should not be driven by the hard cases.  Tough edit followed by
> 'respite' protection of a month, I'd support.

Speaking of plucking the peacock's feathers ...

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Funny joke...

body:
Alphax wrote:

>geni wrote:
>
>
>>On 10/18/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Apparantly people who think that consensus on AfD means "70-75% with at
>>>least 10 clear non-sock/meatpuppet votes, with votes without clear
>>>reason being disregarded" aren't suitable to be admins.
>>>
>>>
>>Admins can think what they like. Just as long as they follow policy
>>and comunity consensus when useing admin powers.
>>
>>
>Apparantly community consensus doens't include putting thought into
>closing deletion debates; admins are supposed to count the numbers and
>press the magic button.
>
>Draw circle on desk. Bang head here.
>
Have you been reading too much Dilbert?

Ec


from_name: Yong Liu

subject: [Commons-l] Stockholm Challenge Award 2006

body:
*Please circulate widely and apologies for cross-posting*

I hope this will be of interest to you.If you have questions or comments,
please contact Earl Mardle at earl.mardle at stockholmchallenge.se or Ulla
Skid??n at ulla.skiden at stockholmchallenge.se.

Best,

Yong Liu

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 The Stockholm Challenge Award 2006 is open for entries

<http://www.stockholmchallenge.se/news_right.asp?IdNr=150>THE STOCKHOLM
CHALLENGE AWARD 2006 invites excellent ICT projects from all over the world
to compete for the prestigious Challenge trophies. The Challenge is
searching for the best initiatives that accelerate the use of information
technology for the social and economic benefit of citizens and communities.
The objective is to help local entrepreneurs, who work to close the digital
divide, by bringing in research communities, development organisations and
strong corporate initiatives.

THE AWARDS WILL BE HANDED OUT IN SIX CATEGORIES
<http://www.stockholmchallenge.se/show_facts.asp?IdNr=9>in the City Hall -
on May 11, 2006. Special focus will be on projects in countries and regions
with the greatest needs. There will also be an international Challenge
conference in Stockholm on issues related to the role of ICTs in global
development work.

*THE AWARD IS OPEN FOR ENTRIES until December 31st 2005*. The application
form <http://www.stockholmchallenge.se/omtavling_index.html>is easily
accessible on the home page.

The Stockholm Challenge is headquartered at the IT University
<http://www.it-univ.se/?lang=en>- a joint initiative by
KTH<http://www.kth.se/eng/>(The Royal Institute of Technology) and
Stockholm
University <http://www.su.se/english> . It is managed by a consortium that
also includes the City of Stockholm, Ericsson and Sida, the Swedish
International Development Cooperation Agency.

For more information, please contact:
Project Manager
Ulla Skid??n
ulla.skiden at stockholmchallenge.se
Telephone: + 46 8 7904469
Cell: +46 70 678 72 82

www.stockholmchallenge.se <http://www.stockholmchallenge.se/>

*Rules for participation in the Stockholm Challenge Award
2006<http://www.stockholmchallenge.se/show_facts.asp?IdNr=3>
*

These are the basic rules for the participation in the Stockholm Challenge
Award. All competing projects must:

1. Include ICT
Illustrate how ICT is used to create new or better traditional services
and/or products, which are beneficial for human and social development.

2. Be implemented
All competing projects must be up and running. They should be
implemented/piloted since no less than three months. The Stockholm Challenge
Award does not accept drafted concepts and ideas only. The jury will only
evaluate and compare projects that can show measurable outcomes and impact.

3. Be linked to and/or supported by an established private or public
organisation.

4. Be verifiable, i.e. able to present credible references.

5. Be free from religious, political or other personal beliefs.

*To be noted:*

*Projects that have won one of the Challenge categories in previous years
cannot enter the competition again.*

*All applications must be in English*

*Evaluation criteria<http://www.stockholmchallenge.se/show_facts.asp?IdNr=4>
*

Innovation, creativity and the convergence of ICT with many different
disciplines are some of the qualities that are looked for in the competing
projects. The jury, a group of international senior experts, base their
evaluation on the following criteria, most of which all Challenge projects
should meet:

*Innovation*
Competing projects should illustrate new and innovative ways of using ICT to
improve the living and economical conditions especially of those with great
needs.

*Convergence*
The addition of ICT as a tool to traditional development work can improve
and widen the scope of the project impact. Projects should show successful
convergences of different disciplines and sectors.

*Inclusion*
It is favourable for the competing projects to show that they bring
individuals, groups and local organisations into larger communities ?C
national and global - such as medical, government, educational and cultural
networks, as well business environments.

*Equal Opportunity*
It is important that the initiatives counteract inequality related to the
likes of gender, origin, age, physical and/or mental disabilities.

*Sustainability*
An important factor is sustainability. Not only economic sustainability, i.e.
how long the project will last and bring benefits to its users.
Sustainability also includes the contribution of the project to a
sustainable society and environment at large.

*Opportunities <http://www.stockholmchallenge.se/show_facts.asp?IdNr=2>*

To enter a project in the Stockholm Challenge Award is not only to
participate in a prestigious international ICT competition - it is also a
way to join networks of some of the best ICT entrepreneurs and pioneers in
the world. Testimonials from many of the projects, which have competed in
their respective categories over the years, say that it is the inspiration,
the new ideas, contacts and partners that are the greatest rewards for a
Challenger.

The Stockholm Challenge represents excellent marketing through the exposure
to media, and to private and public organizations that are involved in ICT
work and implementations. It gives promotional opportunities for
entrepreneurs, universities, cities, cities and regions. The Stockholm
Challenge Final Events include a Best Practice Exhibition and a Conference.
It is a meeting place for some the world's most successful IT entrepreneurs.

Winners and finalists of the Stockholm Challenge are global role models for
cities, companies, organisations, schools and others who are involved in
adapting and spreading the use of ICT.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20051018/84c6510e/attachment.htm


from_name: Jakob Voss

subject: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Stockholm Challenge Award 2006

body:
Hi!

Looks like Wikipedia could fit into the education section. The ceremony
for the price is in the Stockholm City hall where also the Nobel banket
takes place - this is our direction, isn't it? Anyone willing to sketch
a description of Wikimedia projects that includes ICT,
life-long-learning, education and all these buzzwords?

Greetings,
Jakob

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Stockholm Challenge Award 2006 is open for entries

<http://www.stockholmchallenge.se/news_right.asp?IdNr=150>THE STOCKHOLM
CHALLENGE AWARD 2006 invites excellent ICT projects from all over the
world to compete for the prestigious Challenge trophies. The Challenge
is searching for the best initiatives that accelerate the use of
information technology for the social and economic benefit of citizens
and communities. The objective is to help local entrepreneurs, who work
to close the digital divide, by bringing in research communities,
development organisations and strong corporate initiatives.

THE AWARDS WILL BE HANDED OUT IN SIX CATEGORIES
<http://www.stockholmchallenge.se/show_facts.asp?IdNr=9>in the City Hall
- on May 11, 2006. Special focus will be on projects in countries and
regions with the greatest needs. There will also be an international
Challenge conference in Stockholm on issues related to the role of ICTs
in global development work.

*THE AWARD IS OPEN FOR ENTRIES until December 31st 2005*. The
application form
<http://www.stockholmchallenge.se/omtavling_index.html>is easily
accessible on the home page.

The Stockholm Challenge is headquartered at the IT University
<http://www.it-univ.se/?lang=en>- a joint initiative by KTH
<http://www.kth.se/eng/> (The Royal Institute of Technology) and
Stockholm University <http://www.su.se/english> . It is managed by a
consortium that also includes the City of Stockholm, Ericsson and Sida,
the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency.

For more information, please contact:
Project Manager
Ulla Skid?n
ulla.skiden at stockholmchallenge.se <mailto:ulla.skiden at stockholmchallenge.se>
Telephone: + 46 8 7904469
Cell: +46 70 678 72 82

www.stockholmchallenge.se <http://www.stockholmchallenge.se/>

*Rules for participation in the Stockholm Challenge Award 2006
<http://www.stockholmchallenge.se/show_facts.asp?IdNr=3>*

These are the basic rules for the participation in the Stockholm
Challenge Award. All competing projects must:

1. Include ICT
Illustrate how ICT is used to create new or better traditional services
and/or products, which are beneficial for human and social development.

2. Be implemented
All competing projects must be up and running. They should be
implemented/piloted since no less than three months. The Stockholm
Challenge Award does not accept drafted concepts and ideas only. The
jury will only evaluate and compare projects that can show measurable
outcomes and impact.

3. Be linked to and/or supported by an established private or public
organisation.

4. Be verifiable, i.e. able to present credible references.

5. Be free from religious, political or other personal beliefs.

/*To be noted:*/

/*Projects that have won one of the Challenge categories in previous
years cannot enter the competition again.*/

/*All applications must be in English*/

*Evaluation criteria
<http://www.stockholmchallenge.se/show_facts.asp?IdNr=4>*

Innovation, creativity and the convergence of ICT with many different
disciplines are some of the qualities that are looked for in the
competing projects. The jury, a group of international senior experts,
base their evaluation on the following criteria, most of which all
Challenge projects should meet:

_Innovation_
Competing projects should illustrate new and innovative ways of using
ICT to improve the living and economical conditions especially of those
with great needs.

_Convergence_
The addition of ICT as a tool to traditional development work can
improve and widen the scope of the project impact. Projects should show
successful convergences of different disciplines and sectors.

_Inclusion_
It is favourable for the competing projects to show that they bring
individuals, groups and local organisations into larger communities ?
national and global - such as medical, government, educational and
cultural networks, as well business environments.

_Equal Opportunity_
It is important that the initiatives counteract inequality related to
the likes of gender, origin, age, physical and/or mental disabilities.

_Sustainability_
An important factor is sustainability. Not only economic sustainability,
i.e. how long the project will last and bring benefits to its users.
Sustainability also includes the contribution of the project to a
sustainable society and environment at large.

*Opportunities <http://www.stockholmchallenge.se/show_facts.asp?IdNr=2>*

To enter a project in the Stockholm Challenge Award is not only to
participate in a prestigious international ICT competition - it is also
a way to join networks of some of the best ICT entrepreneurs and
pioneers in the world. Testimonials from many of the projects, which
have competed in their respective categories over the years, say that it
is the inspiration, the new ideas, contacts and partners that are the
greatest rewards for a Challenger.

The Stockholm Challenge represents excellent marketing through the
exposure to media, and to private and public organizations that are
involved in ICT work and implementations. It gives promotional
opportunities for entrepreneurs, universities, cities, cities and
regions. The Stockholm Challenge Final Events include a Best Practice
Exhibition and a Conference. It is a meeting place for some the world's
most successful IT entrepreneurs.

Winners and finalists of the Stockholm Challenge are global role models
for cities, companies, organisations, schools and others who are
involved in adapting and spreading the use of ICT.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Funny joke...

body:
Guettarda wrote:

>On 10/18/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Apparantly community consensus doens't include putting thought into
>>closing deletion debates; admins are supposed to count the numbers and
>>press the magic button.
>>
>>Draw circle on desk. Bang head here.
>>
>>
>No - the point is that, like any other "elected" position, you need to shut
>up about your actual opinions, recite platitudes, and kss babies. NEVER
>reveal your true intentions to make the world a better place, or you will be
>shot down.
>
Never question what end of the baby is presented for kissing.

>Think about it like this - I think that AfD is a cesspool, and I have no
>interest in closing debates. I don't want to be attacks for making judgement
>calls the way that Tony is. So, to parallel your experience, if I said that
>I don't want to close AfD debates, I assume that people would say "he
>doesn't want AfD debates to ever get closed, he wants them to stay open
>forever". :)
>
What's wrong with keeping them open forever?  If that were to happen we
wouldn't need VfU, and the work would be cut in half.

Ec


from_name: Martin Richards

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocking proposal

body:
Hi guys, there is a proposal for a new form of blocking at [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal]]. In a nutshell would nable to us to block IP addresses, but allow registered users to use that IP address, this would mean "good" users will not be blocked by accident, and vandals from AOL, schools etc. can be blocked.

The main drawback is that more determined vandals could then just register an account and continue vandising, but we can't do much about those determined vandals anyway. Plus we could have some kind of system to further deter vandals from registering, such as having a delay on their account creation or something (see the page for more).

At present the "vote" (yes I know, we all hate votes) looks like it will favour introducing the new kind of block in some form, but of course the ins and outs will probably have to be decided by the developers as to what is technically feasible etc.

What do you guys think? Plus, if it does prove popular, how do we go about implementing it? I have little understanding of the software so am totally lost on that front.

Martin (User:Bluemoose)


subject: Ant: [Wikipedia-l] Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia - a policy question?

body:
Milos Rancic wrote:

>On 10/16/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Milos has been working on software tools to allow for full support in
>>*one* Wikipedia of all 4 major ways of writing this language.
>>
>>
>Actually, four variants are only for Serbian standards :) There would
>be more variants if we include Croatian and Bosnian standards and
>sub-standards. Bosniaks have two more standards (just Latin and
>Cyrillic) and two more sub-standards (they have Ikavian sub-standard
>written in both alphabets) and Croats have one more sub-standard
>(Ikavian, too; written in Latin alphabet only).
>
>(As well as we should have three more Wikipedias in the (far) future:
>so called "dialects" Chakavian, Kaykavian and Torlakian are language
>systems with more difference between each other and between Shtokavian
>dialect (and all standards which are based on Shtokavian dialect) then
>all standards are different between each other. But, this is
>completely another story.)
>
Sounds like some people work very hard at keeping things sub-standard.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] So what do we do about this?

body:
>
>
> > Is is just me, or does it seem needlessly inflammatory to compare solid
> > editors - admins, no less - to the LaRouchies?
> >
> > Ian
>
>
> If the LaRouchies and the "solid editors" are both citing minor
> sources published in an echo chamber as quality resources, then no, I
> don't think it's needless.
>
> -Snowspinner

I see. So saying "obviously you support election fraud" would be appropriate
too, and not "needlessly" inflammatory? Interesting.

Ian


from_name: James D. Forrester

subject: [WikiEN-l] Vandalbot range block

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> > This may be a stupid question, but can someone point me towards the
> > history behind this Wik chap? There's a lot of references now, but it
> > seems to just predate me...
>
> Wik ([[User:Wik]]) was a Wikipedian dedicated to the point of
> obsession. He mostly made very good edits, but was somewhat brittle
> and abrasive. Eventually he got pissed off with another user doing
> things to his talk page and wanted it *stopped*, and eventually wrote
> a nasty vandalbot to do just that ([[User:Vandalbot]]). He returned as
> [[User:Gzornenplatz]], but continued to be abrasive in the same way,
> and ended up at the AC. It turned out he was definitely Wik. He came
> back again as [[User:NoPuzzleStranger]], editing from open proxies;
> and continued okay for a while, but then was abrasive again in exactly
> the same way; then Lucky 6.9 noticed that "NoPuzzleStranger" was an
> anagram of "User Gzornenplatz".

[Snip]

> (Any details above incorrect, please correct!)

Slight expansion: we (the Arbitration Committee) banned him for a week
for a few personal attacks; during this time, several highly immature
editors kept vandalising Wik's page (certainly, as he saw it), taunting
him for being banned. Understandably, Wik got rather upset (I do not in
any way condone his subsequent actions, though). It wasn't just that
they were "doing things" to his talk page, it was that they were doing
it and he couldn't respond.

Anyway, enough of this. We've current work to do. There's no use just
reminiscing about the good old days when I could actually recognise more
than 20% of the sysops as such.

Yours sincerely,
--
James D. Forrester
Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
E-Mail    : james at jdforrester.org
IM (MSN)  : jamesdforrester at hotmail.com


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Static HTML dumps

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Earlier, elian wrote:
>
>>If we're going to offer it for download, we should keep in mind that
>>people won't put it only at their computers at home, but also back on
>>the web. In this case, it absolutely should conform to the license,
>>with the usual wikipedia back links, history links and a copy of the
>>license included. And we should also remove the wikipedia logo not to
>>invite any imitations and trademark violations.
>
>
> I just wanted to be clear that I agree with this completely.  At the
> bare minimum of a first change, the page
> http://static.wikipedia.org/
>
> Should make it very clear that this dump is not for commercial use with
> our logo still on it.

I thought it did. I wrote:

"There are a number of known bugs, also it is likely that these dumps do
not fully satisfy the license requirements of the GFDL. Also, note that
putting one of these dumps on the web unmodified will constitute a
trademark violation. They are intended for private viewing in an
intranet or desktop installation."

-- Tim Starling


subject: [WikiEN-l] Funny joke...

body:
geni wrote:

>On 10/18/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>What's wrong with keeping them open forever?
>>
>>
>[[Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for
>deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency]]
>
>
I fail to see the connection between the principle of keeping
discussions open forever, and your anti-obscenity project.  Your
response is a total non-sequitur.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocking proposal

body:
On 10/18/05, Martin Richards <Martin at velocitymanager.com> wrote:
> Hi guys, there is a proposal for a new form of blocking at [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal]]. In a nutshell would nable to us to block IP addresses, but allow registered users to use that IP address, this would mean "good" users will not be blocked by accident, and vandals from AOL, schools etc. can be blocked.
>
> The main drawback is that more determined vandals could then just register an account and continue vandising, but we can't do much about those determined vandals anyway. Plus we could have some kind of system to further deter vandals from registering, such as having a delay on their account creation or something (see the page for more).
>
> At present the "vote" (yes I know, we all hate votes) looks like it will favour introducing the new kind of block in some form, but of course the ins and outs will probably have to be decided by the developers as to what is technically feasible etc.
>
> What do you guys think? Plus, if it does prove popular, how do we go about implementing it? I have little understanding of the software so am totally lost on that front.
>
> Martin (User:Bluemoose)

This has been listed on bugzilla forever. we are waiting to see if the
developers  decide to take it up.

geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Funny joke...

body:
On 10/18/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Apparantly people who think that consensus on AfD means "70-75% with at
> least 10 clear non-sock/meatpuppet votes, with votes without clear
> reason being disregarded" aren't suitable to be admins.
>

Admins can think what they like. Just as long as they follow policy
and comunity consensus when useing admin powers.
--
geni


from_name: Phil Sandifer

subject: [WikiEN-l] So what do we do about this?

body:
On 10/18/05, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/18/05, Snowspinner <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > It's the same problem
> > we had on the [[Lyndon LaRouche]] articles where we finally had to
> > declare that LaRouche sources were all well and good, but just didn't
> > count as sources for the purposes of verifiability.
>
>
> Is is just me, or does it seem needlessly inflammatory to compare solid
> editors - admins, no less - to the LaRouchies?
>
> Ian

If the LaRouchies and the "solid editors" are both citing minor
sources published in an echo chamber as quality resources, then no, I
don't think it's needless.

-Snowspinner


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocking proposal

body:
On 10/18/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Trouble is that determined vandals are perfectly capable of
> stockpiling accounts for use in future. And the more anti-vandal
> measures you implement, the more determined vandals become (see
> Slashdot).

 The proposal here is to take away an anti-vandal measure, namely the
blocking of logged in users who happen to be using the same IP address as a
vandal. So by your rationale, this would cause vandals to become less
determined.
 Of course, I see it more as limiting the collateral damage, and fixing a
bug in the mediawiki software which allows vandals to perform a denial of
service attack.


from_name: Guettarda

subject: [WikiEN-l] So what do we do about this?

body:
On 10/18/05, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 18, 2005, at 1:33 PM, Guettarda wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I see. So saying "obviously you support election fraud" would be
> > appropriate
> > too, and not "needlessly" inflammatory? Interesting.
> >
> >
>
> I don't know how to answer this, except to say this. I have taught
> freshman composition at a respected university, focusing particularly
> on research. If one of my students handed me a paper that used those
> citations in that way, I would fail them.

What does that have to do with your decision to insult your fellow editors?
I would fail students for submitting half of the articles in Wikipedia - but
I would not tell them that they were bad people for submitting poorly
sourced material. In fact, I'd be thrilled to have someone show some
evidence that they were thinking, and not just repeating back to me what I
told them.

More to the point though, since you brought up your experience teaching
comp, wouldn't you fail a student for submitting an entirely off-topic
answer to your question?

Ian


subject: [WikiEN-l] So what do we do about this?

body:
On 10/18/05, Keith Old <keithold at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What evidence is there of election fraud?. As an Australian who follows
> things in American politics, I would say precious little.
>
> I voted to delete all of these articles because they were written from the
> point of view of saying "We wuz robbed" rather than taking an objective
> view
> of the evidence. Unfortunately, in my mind, the partisan spirit of the
> majority of voters overcame their good judgement. It seems things haven't
> changed for the better in any case.

Actually election fraud is an old and established element of American
elections. Whether it changed the outcome of the 2004 Presidential Elections
is another matter. Given the attention it received, it definitely deserves
an article. Everything else is a formatting question.

Ian


subject: [WikiEN-l] So what do we do about this?

body:
On 10/18/05, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 18, 2005, at 2:36 PM, Guettarda wrote:
> >
> > More to the point though, since you brought up your experience
> > teaching
> > comp, wouldn't you fail a student for submitting an entirely off-topic
> > answer to your question?
>
> I have indeed stopped beating my wife.

Go back and read the intructions at the top of the question paper.


from_name: charles matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] So what do we do about this?

body:
>Admittedly, it is a controversial topic,
> & this article probably won't find a form acceptible to everyone
> for a long time -- but no one has suggested that we wipe the slate
> clean for the Israel & Palestine-related articles, & we have tolerated
> the flamewars there.
>
> Geoff

I can't say I care that much.  US politics is surely too much covered on WP
(but not in terms of its importance); i.e. turgidity rules.

Yes, there should be more on Kant.  Let's have it, please.  (I can claim to
have started the [[neo-kantianism]] article, not that I have the slightest
expertise).

The only real way to deal with the phenomenon of 'bloat', I think, is not to
change any basic rules - that ought to be resisted, policy should not be
driven by the hard cases.  Tough edit followed by 'respite' protection of a
month, I'd support.

Charles


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocking proposal

body:
On 10/18/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This has been listed on bugzilla forever. we are waiting to see if the
> developers  decide to take it up.

I wrote a patch enabling logged-in users to edit on blocked IPs ages
ago, but decided on balance it might well cause more problems that it
would solve.  If there is a discussion (not a vote, a proper
discussion) on this I'm pleased, and maybe I'll learn something from
others' opinions on the matter.


from_name: Philip Sandifer

subject: [WikiEN-l] So what do we do about this?

body:
On Oct 18, 2005, at 1:33 PM, Guettarda wrote:

>
>
> I see. So saying "obviously you support election fraud" would be
> appropriate
> too, and not "needlessly" inflammatory? Interesting.
>
>

I don't know how to answer this, except to say this. I have taught
freshman composition at a respected university, focusing particularly
on research. If one of my students handed me a paper that used those
citations in that way, I would fail them. Regardless of whether there
was election fraud, the article is a poorly written, POV mess. And it
is not the place of Wikipedia to decide if there was election fraud -
it's the place of Wikipedia to accurately describe the controversy
surrounding it. A controversy that led to no successful challenges to
the outcome of the election, and no lasting media coverage. Instead
of this, though, we have 60,000 words of original research.

-Snowspinner


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Funny joke...

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Alphax wrote:
>
>>
>> Draw circle on desk. Bang head here.
>>
> Have you been reading too much Dilbert?

One can never read too much Dilbert! We should get Scott Adams
interested in WP and do cartoons on the politics - Dogbert
could take over AfD with an army of robotic sockpuppets, Alice
has to write the PHB's vanity bio, etc.

Stan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocking proposal

body:
Tony wrote:
>If there is a discussion (not a vote, a proper
> discussion) on this I'm pleased, and maybe I'll learn something from
> others' opinions on the matter.

Yeah, thats why i brought it here, and made the [[wikipedia:blocking policy
proposal]] page, the "vote" is just a way to gauge consensus when there are
too many opinions floating around to judge properly what people generally
consider the best result. The talk page has significant amount of
discussion.

I personally think that having this block plus a time delay of 1 hour on
accounts created from the blocked IP address would put off all but the most
determined vandals, and even the determined vandals would not be willing to
repeatedly wait an hour everytime their new account got blocked. While it
might be a bit annoying for the good users who wish to make an account, I
don't think it would put them off, and it would easily be a price worth
paying.

thanks

Martin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Sidaway" <f.crdfa at gmail.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Blocking proposal

> On 10/18/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> This has been listed on bugzilla forever. we are waiting to see if the
>> developers  decide to take it up.
>
> I wrote a patch enabling logged-in users to edit on blocked IPs ages
> ago, but decided on balance it might well cause more problems that it
> would solve.  If there is a discussion (not a vote, a proper
> discussion) on this I'm pleased, and maybe I'll learn something from
> others' opinions on the matter.
> _______________________________________________
> 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: steve v

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocking proposal

body:
--- Fl Celloguy <flcelloguy at hotmail.com> wrote:

> The proposal would
> indubitably mean the blocking
> (using this logged-in only registration) of most AOL
> IPs, Netscape IPs,
> school districts, public-use computers, and major
> corporations.

And how is this wrong?

By only
> allowing logged-in users on these IPs (since it is
> inevitable that all of
> them would either be blocked indefinitely or blocked
> consistently),

This is not the case -- editors far outnumber vandals.
This would simply force editors who have 1) previously
been unlogged in and 2) happen to be on a IP used by
vandals, to register and log in. Whats wrong with
that?

> opinion, is against the spirit of the Wiki - we're
> here to allow *anyone* to
> edit, not just those who want to create accounts.

Bah. This affects only vandal IPs, which are fewer
than larger. Logging in doesnt (necessarily)
compromise anonymity -- not unless there is some
unprincipled turning over of user logs to third
parties. In fact, logging in offers more anonymity,
wheras an IP address is in fact an identifier. Using
dynamic IPs for anonymity is just a defacto method to
increase anonymity -- it does not in fact *provide
such.

This blocking
> policy proposal would take
> us one step closer to not allowing any anonymous
> editing - AOL, school
> districts, and public-use computers comprise a large
> amount of our editing,
> and many are valuable editors and contributors that
> we may lose if this
> policy is implemented.

Bah. Your rant simply repeats a lot of the same claims
and fears without basing them in substance. If youre
just worried that range blocks would become used too
routinely, then thats a concern to address later
--when such actually becomes a problem.

SV

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocking proposal

body:
Trouble is that determined vandals are perfectly capable of
stockpiling accounts for use in  future.  And the more anti-vandal
measures you implement, the more determined vandals become (see
Slashdot).


subject: [WikiEN-l] So what do we do about this?

body:
On Oct 18, 2005, at 2:36 PM, Guettarda wrote:
>
> More to the point though, since you brought up your experience
> teaching
> comp, wouldn't you fail a student for submitting an entirely off-topic
> answer to your question?

I have indeed stopped beating my wife.

-Snowspinner