from_name: Jakob Voss

body:
Please circulate this call among Wikimedia communities, researchers and
other people that may be interested! This call is also online at
http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Call_for_Participation

== Wikimania 2007: Call for Participation ==

=== About Wikimania ===

Wikimania is an annual global event devoted to Wikipedia and the other
Wikimedia Foundation projects. It is a community event, which is also
open to the public and to scientists. Wikimania is a place for editors
and users of the Wikimedia projects around the globe (Wikipedia,
Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikinews, Wiktionary, and Wikiversity) to gather,
to meet each other, to exchange ideas, and to report on research and
projects. This year's conference will be held from August 3-5, 2007 in
Taipei, Taiwan at Chien Tan Overseas Youth Activity Center
<http://www.cyh.org.tw/center/center_bu.php?loginno=&buid=B>.

We are accepting submissions for posters, presentations, workshops, and
discussion groups. We are also accepting nominations for speakers and
speaker panels, and suggestions for other activities. Please note the
details below and be bold in your submissions!

=== Important dates ===

  * 1 March ? 30 April: Submission
  * 1 May ? 31 May: Feedback and notification of acceptance
  * 3 ? 5 Aug 2007 : Wikimania

=== Conference Themes ===

Submissions should address one or more of the following themes:

  * Wikimedia Communities ? Interesting projects and particularities
within the communities (we explicitly invite you to present your local
Wikimedia project's community!); policy creation within individual
projects; conflict resolution and community dynamics; reputation and
identity; multilingualism, languages and cultures; social studies.

  * Free Content ? Open access to information; ways to gather and
distribute free knowledge, usage of the Wikimedia projects in education,
journalism, research; ways to improve content quality and usability;
copyright laws and other legal areas that interfere with Wikimedia projects.

  * Technical infrastructure ? Issues related to Mediawiki development
and extensions; Wikimedia hardware layout; new ideas for development
(including usable case studies from other wikis or similar projects).

Your topic must be related to Wikimedia projects and its communities or
to the creation of free content in general. If your topic does not cover
free content creation and communities but wikis or communities in other
applications then the WikiSym 2007 conference
<http://www.wikisym.org/ws2007/> (October 21-23, 2007, Montreal) or a
Recent Changes camp might better suit.

=== Types of Submissions ===

We are seeking submissions for

  * presentations (10?30 minute talks with optional short or full papers)
  * posters (printed presentations or visual displays that can stand on
their own)
  * workshops (30?120 minute session with more involvement of the audience)
  * panels (group of 2-5 speakers to discuss on a specific subject)
  * Birds-of-a-Feather (BoF) (45-60 minutes informal meetup of group
discussion on a particular topic)
  * artistic artifacts (plays, competitions, comedy, visualizations, or
other representations of some aspect of the projects)

Furthermore you may leave ideas, comment, and suggestions at the public
wiki page <http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Program_Ideas>.

=== Guidelines ===

Wikimania is organized by volunteers, so please help us to minimize
wasted effort by following these guidelines carefully before submitting
and be sure not to forget anything that is mentioned here. All
submissions must explicitly include the following:

  * an English title
  * a short English abstract of 50 to 100 words. The abstracts should be
provided as plain text, and not as file attachments. This abstract will
be used as public description of your submission in the conference program
  * a detailed description (or full paper) of at least one page (300
words or more). This description will not be published unless you want
it, but used for reviewing your submission. Give an overview of the
areas to be covered or taught. State clearly the relevance to the
Wikimedia projects and whether submission concerns a specific wiki
project. You may use any language, but we strongly suggest English or
Chinese. Full descriptions may include a link to a full paper or slides
in HTML or PDF, if available.
  * full name, email address, and a short bio of 1?3 sentences for each
author. You may also add wiki usernames and nicknames.
  * the type of submission (presentation, poster, workshop, panel, BoF,
artistic)
  * the language(s) you are going to talk in (or the language of your
poster)

Please tell us with your submission whether you will attend to Wikimania
(a) surely, (b) probably, (c) only if your submission is accepted, or
(d) only if you manage to get further funding. It may also help to add
yourself to the public list of attendees at
<http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Attendees>.

Additionally you must specify:

  * the target audience you are going to reach and what previous
knowledge is needed
  * special requirements (such as equipment for a workshop or panel) if
needed
  * images or sketches of the poster or artistic artifact if available
  * for panel submissions short biographies of each suggested panelist
  * whether the presentation is intended to be a specific length.
  * BoF proposals should describe the significance of and community
interest in the topic, and name the proposed discussion leader(s).

Please note that all submissions must be dual licensed under the GNU
Free Documentation License version 1.2 or later and the Creative Commons
Attribution License.

Once you are sure you have included all of the required information,
please send your submission by the respective deadline through our
submission system <http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submission>,
which will be available at the Wikimania 2007 website. Please do not
send submissions by email. For poster sessions
<http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Poster_session> there are
additional guidelines. Before the main conference there will also be
informal Hacking days
<http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hacking_days> for MediaWiki
developers who are familiar with the software. If you need help for
translating your work please visit our translation help page. Questions,
but not submissions, may be directed to cfp at wikimedia.org.


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2007: Call for Participation


list: wikien-l

from_name: George Herbert

subject: [WikiEN-l] Correction to New Yorker Article

body:
On 3/1/07, Josh Gordon <user.jpgordon at gmail.com> wrote:
> I will consider criticism of Essjay particularly valid when it is
> accompanied by a general call to eliminate pseudonymous editing of
> Wikipedia. The vast majority of editors on Wikipedia are anonymous,
> and I'm sure they have their various reasons, but anyone whose persona
> is not congruent with their real personality is doing exactly what
> Essjay did, on one level or another.
>
> I don't expect a lot of support for this position, but it's the
> logical extension of the outcry against Essjay's charade.

I don't particularly feel like criticising Essjay on this point,
having roleplayed various pseudonyms online for various reasons
before.  Caught a lot of socially dumb early hackers that way back in
the day...

I will make two points, though:

One, as I've said before, it's easier to avoid some of the pseudonym
problems if you just use your real name.  I don't think there's any
cause to abolish pseudonyms, but I do suggest that people reconsider
using them.  My opinion is that use of real names does not in fact
bring any significant risk of real life consequences, and is simpler
and ultimately better for you and the project.

Two, keep in mind that anything you do related to Wikipedia may now
get viewed by a potentially hostile press and outside community.

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


body:
On 3/1/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I will make two points, though:
> >
> > One, as I've said before, it's easier to avoid some of the pseudonym
> > problems if you just use your real name.  I don't think there's any
> > cause to abolish pseudonyms, but I do suggest that people reconsider
> > using them.  My opinion is that use of real names does not in fact
> > bring any significant risk of real life consequences, and is simpler
> > and ultimately better for you and the project.
> >
> > Two, keep in mind that anything you do related to Wikipedia may now
> > get viewed by a potentially hostile press and outside community.
> >
> > -george william herbert
>
>
>
> Those two observations seem inconsistent with each other.

Attempted clarification:

I doubt anything will happen personally to Essjay over this (and would
hate to see that happen).  I think it's dinged us somewhat in the
press, based on the blogosphere at least.

That it may not affect you (personally) doesn't mean it won't affect
us (collectively, the project).

Does that work?

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


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Liang Chen

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki Looks "Fat" in IE 6/7!! HELP

body:
HI,
  Fixed, Thanks!!!

On 3/1/07, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikilist at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/28/07, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikilist at gmail.com> wrote:
> > IE is rendering your page in quirks mode for some reason.  This is
> > almost certainly the cause of the problem.
>
> And checking it with the XHTML validator
> <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fkaoshi.wobuxihuan.org%2F>,
> I see the reason: you've added a BOM to some file, probably
> LocalSettings.php but possibly any PHP file you've edited.  This is
> likely the result of using a sucky editor like Notepad.  Look at the
> beginning of LocalSettings.php and other files you've edited with a
> hex editor (Google for a selection); you should see three gibberish
> bytes at the beginning of one or more of them,  EF BB BF.  Delete
> those and save and things should clear up.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

--
                     ---BiGreat---
               www.Liang-Chen.com


list: foundation-l

from_name: Robert Horning

subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 3/1/07, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
>
>> The idea that each one of the 200 or so
>> "active" Wikimedia projects will each have to submit some sort of "EDP"
>> to legal counsel, overcoming language and local legal issues too, seems
>> to be something so absurd as to be unworkable as well.
>>
>
> There is absolutely no requirement for any project to develop an EDP.
> They may simply not use any kind of "fair use" material until they do
> so. Some may never want to do so.
>
> The requirement to work directly with WMF counsel in the process is
> not in the current draft resolution. However, we will probably try to
> form a volunteer team (committee or workgroup) that coordinates this
> process.
>
This is effectively banning fair use from all but the absolutely most
active projects and mandating that there is no fair use.  It also
doesn't deal at all with existing content which has claimed fair use and
has been a part of the Wikimedia culture from nearly the very beginning
of Wikipedia, right or wrong.  This also adds a major requirement for
those smaller projects that are for the most part still struggling to
even get participants at all.

The language issues are something that is going to be very substantial.
I don't know how many WMF counselors (or attorneys) that speak
Indonesian or Thai, but trying to come up with such a policy seems that
it would offer several cultural problems that translation may not
completely catch.  This isn't quite as simple of a proposition as is
being suggested here.

In addition, what would happen if a project allows fair use (the admins
don't delete the content and are insisting on keeping it in the
projects) but hasn't submitted this EDP?  Is the WMF prepared to "pull
the plug" and kill the project completely?  That seems to be the threat
that is offered here, and is certainly something very confrontational in
nature that goes against the traditional tone of the relationship
between the WMF and individual projects.  Particularly when this is a
policy that is coming from the top down and is a change in the rules
from what has been traditionally permitted in the very recent past.  I'm
not saying that the WMF can't do this in a legal sense, but this sort of
roughshod micromanagement of individual projects is the sort of thing
that kills project communities, especially when there are additional
language and cultural barriers that would make this issue even more
complex to deal with.

Wikibooks has survived, rather poorly unfortunately, this exact sort of
micromanagement from the top and still hasn't recovered the previous
momentium it had before some massive culling of content that has taken
place over the previous year.  And that was for Wikibooks-specific
content policies.  I see this becoming a major issue if it is not dealt
with on a grass-roots level first involving a great many people from all
of the major Wikimedia projects.

-- Robert Horning


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!


from_name: Stan Shebs

body:
Josh Gordon wrote:
> I will consider criticism of Essjay particularly valid when it is
> accompanied by a general call to eliminate pseudonymous editing of
> Wikipedia. The vast majority of editors on Wikipedia are anonymous,
> and I'm sure they have their various reasons, but anyone whose persona
> is not congruent with their real personality is doing exactly what
> Essjay did, on one level or another.
>
It's actually a really interesting thing to think about. Why *does* it
matter whether a pseudonym's user page says untrue things? It's
intrinsically unverifiable, after all.

And in the same vein, what if there were untrue things on *my* page,
which is easily tied to a real-life person? Would it be a problem if it
turned out that I hadn't quite completed my PhD? (Remember the admiral
who purportedly committed suicide because some of his medals weren't
valid? He was sure his whole career was over.) What if my user page said
my favorite color was green, when it's actually blue? What if somebody
from WP Review calls up a family member on the phone (that being their
style), and then reveals my dastardly color deception?

My hypothesis is that it depends on whether the information influences
other people in course of our work. Even though we're supposedly all
about the content and not who adds it, we still factor in what we think
we know about the editor. When I think someone is a theology professor,
I'm going to defer a bit in article edits, or spend more time
researching before arguing a point of Catholicism. So I've been cheated
if that person is not really as knowledgeable as claimed. I would feel
cheated even if the false claim was merely to have read a particular
book; I will have edited on the wrong assumption that the book informed
the other person's work.

Conversely, if I'm found to be lying outrageously about my color
preference,  no one would care. Review 40K+ edits to look for evidence
of color chicanery? Not too likely! A few might take it as evidence of
general untrustworthiness, but if on a talk page someone said "that guy
lied about his color preference, how can we ever trust him again!", I
don't think it would be taken as a license to revert all my past and
present edits; instead people just go back to the default process of
evaluating content on its own merits.

Stan


from_name: geni

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Hypothetical question about how certain admin
	behavior would be handled on Wikipedia

body:
On 3/1/07, wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
> For the record, the actual way it was handled there, their Jimbo-Wales-like-figure, who does deign to intervene in the affairs of mortals, unblocked the non-sysop, called the action overzealous, and complimented both parties (but "particularly" the sysop), on their contributions to the project.
>
> I'm still interested in peoples' answers to my hypothetical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLOCK#When_blocking_may_not_be_used

--
geni


from_name: Josh Gordon

body:
On 3/1/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
> My hypothesis is that it depends on whether the information influences
> other people in course of our work.

That's a good way of framing it. I'm sure some obsessive or extremely
curious person will go and pick through all of Essjay's interactions
on talk pages on Catholic-related articles, and edits there, looking
for evidence of negative effect.

But basically what seems to be upsetting people most is not that
Essjay established the persona, but that he stayed in character when
approached by the press.

Really, it's the New Yorker that should be embarassed here; they
didn't fact check the identity of someone they only knew online. Lots
of people make that mistake, once.

--
--jpgordon ????


body:
Ron Ritzman wrote:
> On 3/1/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> While that is all absolutely true, it doesn't explain why he chose a
>> fake identity with a PhD and a tenured professorship.
>>
>
> Yes, if he thought it was necessary to create a fake identity to
> protect himself then he should have given his alter ego an educational
> level similar to his own and a job at more or less the same social
> status as his real job.
>
So that means you would be OK with it if I used a pseudonym and claimed
to have a PhD in biology, rather than computer science?

I wonder if some of this is just a belated horrified realization that
Wikipedia can be exploited by the pseudonymous just as much as mySpace
or any other website. I think I got jaded early on, when some pseudonyms
claimed vast backgrounds that didn't jibe at all with their edits, and
so now if someone doesn't supply a real name on the user page, I tend to
treat the whole bio section as random noise ("tenured professor"? yeah
whatever - real professors give specific ranks, if they qualify the term
at all).

However, there is a long tradition of distinguished scholars using
pseudonyms, and it's certainly a nice fantasy to imagine all the
Nobelists secretly adding content under some of those funny names.

Stan


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Job: Volunteer Coordinator

body:
On 3/1/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 3/1/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I was going to suggest a more global-warming-proof location, given
> > both sea level rise and hurricane issues for St Petersberg
>
> I believe the sea level rise is scheduled to happen slowly enough that
> there will be plenty of time to move, so I assume that's more of a
> joke.

There's a schedule?  All the climatologists and oceanographers and
marine engineers I know want to see it, if you have a copy ;-)

There are some ranges estimated, but nobody knows for sure.
Catastrophic events such as relatively sudden loss of the Greenland
Ice Sheet, or West Antarctic Sheet, would cause a relatively swift
rise.

> But the hurricane issues for St. Petersburg are very serious.  From
> what I've read on the matter, St. Pete would be devastated by a direct
> hit from a big hurricane.  Low lying, relatively large population,
> connected to the rest of Florida mostly by bridges.  It'd be really
> bad.
>
> The good thing about hurricanes, as opposed to earthquakes, is that
> with proper planning and adequate insurance, losses can be kept to a
> minimum.  If the WMF doesn't already have a detailed plan in place,
> there are still a few months left to make one.  Anyone in Zephyrhills
> got a really big living room and a T1?  If you let me join the fun
> I'll bring the chips.


body:
On 3/1/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 3/1/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I was going to suggest a more global-warming-proof location, given
> > both sea level rise and hurricane issues for St Petersberg
>
> I believe the sea level rise is scheduled to happen slowly enough that
> there will be plenty of time to move, so I assume that's more of a
> joke.

There's a schedule?  All the climatologists and oceanographers and
marine engineers I know want to see it, if you have a copy ;-)

There are some ranges estimated, but nobody knows for sure.
Catastrophic events such as relatively sudden loss of the Greenland
Ice Sheet, or West Antarctic Sheet, would cause a relatively swift
rise.

> But the hurricane issues for St. Petersburg are very serious.  From
> what I've read on the matter, St. Pete would be devastated by a direct
> hit from a big hurricane.  Low lying, relatively large population,
> connected to the rest of Florida mostly by bridges.  It'd be really
> bad.
>
> The good thing about hurricanes, as opposed to earthquakes, is that
> with proper planning and adequate insurance, losses can be kept to a
> minimum.  If the WMF doesn't already have a detailed plan in place,
> there are still a few months left to make one.  Anyone in Zephyrhills
> got a really big living room and a T1?  If you let me join the fun
> I'll bring the chips.

>From an IT management perspective, this is Business Continuity.

I know some of the answers to this, but a BC analysis asks:

Where is the data duplicated?  Where are the servers duplicated?  What
will the impact be to users of a cutover to the disaster recovery
site(s), in terms of performance and lag and downtime?  Are
administrative and technical staff in the affected zone, and if so,
how do you get them to the DR site, and who handles their houses and
families and so forth?  What are the risks of building flood, wind
damage, and complete collapse?  How long could power be out?  Are
there generator refueling plans?  Do the refuelers have disaster
access permits from the local government?

I could keep going.  There are lots of issues.

I am not aware of there being anywhere that is completely safe from
significant natural disasters.  Some places are more prone than
others, and the ones you get in some areas are more regionally
catastrophic (big earthquakes, big hurricanes, 15 feet of snow across
a whole state, etc) than others (tornados, etc).

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


body:
Josh Gordon wrote:
> Really, it's the New Yorker that should be embarassed here; they
> didn't fact check the identity of someone they only knew online. Lots
> of people make that mistake, once.
>
Especially ironic that it's them, when you think of one of their most
famous cartoons...

Stan


body:
Hi all!

I wrote:
> Please circulate this call among Wikimedia communities, researchers and
> other people that may be interested! This call is also online at
> http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Call_for_Participation

We would like to have contributions from many languages and communities
- can you please help to distribute among other wikis? A tried to inform
some other languages, see

http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Call_for_Participation/distribution#Pages

At this page you can add which community has been informed (or tried to
at least).

Greetings,
Jakob


body:
On 3/1/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Josh Gordon wrote:
> > Really, it's the New Yorker that should be embarassed here; they
> > didn't fact check the identity of someone they only knew online. Lots
> > of people make that mistake, once.
> >
> Especially ironic that it's them, when you think of one of their most
> famous cartoons...

Woof.

--
--jpgordon ????


from_name: Rob Smith

body:
On 3/1/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/1/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > anything you do related to Wikipedia may now
> > > get viewed by a potentially hostile press and outside community.
> > >
> >
> >
> > it's dinged us somewhat in the
> press, based on the blogosphere at least.

Actually this matter has been brewing for some time. Amazing it took this
long to bring attention to it.


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
On 3/1/07, fangaili at gmail.com <fangaili at gmail.com> wrote:
> I consider it a big deal. If Essjay had only misrepresented himself within
> Wikimedia, that would be one thing. But he also went outside the Wikimedia
> community and presented himself (several times) as someone he is not, with
> credentials he does not have.
...
> I have great respect for the work Essjay has done. However, misrepresenting
> himself to outside entities is simply unacceptable.

I agree. I find Ryan's behavior unacceptable and unconscionable.
However, I do not think it lies within Wikimedia's "jurisdiction", so
to speak. What matters only, from our perspective, is what Essjay is
doing or has done within the Wikimedia projects. If he ever
misrepresented himself to gain an advantage in an editorial dispute,
for example, that would be something that an ArbCom case would have to
take into consideration.

I'm simply saddened and disappointed ever since I learned about this.
I don't know what else there is to say.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic


from_name: Thomas Dalton

body:
> I find myself looking on it as "foolish" rather than "unacceptable".
> There *are* stalkers and freaks who go after WP editors, and our
> attitude has generally been that if it's not happening on WP itself,
> it's not our problem. So I can understand why Essjay thought of the
> false identity idea as a way to protect himself, and I might well have
> done it myself when I was his age, not thinking through all the possible
> ramifications. And he's not violating any WP policy, right?

While that is all absolutely true, it doesn't explain why he chose a
fake identity with a PhD and a tenured professorship. I can't see any
reason for that other than to get people to respect him more, which is
rather disappointing, to say the least. I take anything someone says
about themselves under a pseudonym with a pinch of salt, but I still
wouldn't expect that kind of deception.


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Hypothetical question about how certain admin
 behaviorwould be handled on Wikipedia

body:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com [mailto:wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com]
>Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2007 11:25 AM
>To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Hypothetical question about how certain admin behavior	would be handled on Wikipedia
>
>An... interesting... situation has arisen on another Wiki. (Yesyesyes some of you can guess but never mind). Mind you, it _is not Wikipedia_ and it is young, small, and its policies far from codified. It involves a sysop (they call them sysops there) who was given sysop privileges for the purposes of editing a protected page. (I told you, it's not Wikipedia!).
>
>The sysop is arguably aligned with the Wiki's official point of view (yes, it has one).
>
>The sysop is an active editor of a different page, one that is not protected.
>
>The page also has an active non-sysop editor who is arguably not as well aligned, perhaps detectably opposed, to the site's official point of view. But I don't think he is perceived as a problem editor by most users there. He is civil, his changes are well supported by sources, he adds a lot of uncontroversial content, etc. There was a lot of back-and-forth editing, but neither of them would have even been close to being violation of Wikipedia's 3RR. (This site doesn't have any such rule).
>
>In order to prevail in the dispute, the sysop blocked the non-sysop.
>
>For three months.
>
>(No, the non-sysop in question is _not_ me).
>
>What I want here is: which of our policies here would such an admin be violating, and what is people's best and most realistic judgement of what, in practice, would be the likely course of events if a Wikipedia admin did that. (I'm thinking: an RFC, an overwhelming yelling-at by other admins, and perhaps a warning. I'm thinking that a _pattern_ of such behavior really could get someone de-adminned eventually... but how many actual incidents do you think it would take for that to happen?)

One, but as you say, its not Wikipedia.

Fred


subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:ATT

body:
The new acronym makes me think  of [[Mars Attacks!]].

Which is perhaps fitting...

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


body:
On 3/1/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>  Why *does* it
> matter whether a pseudonym's user page says untrue things? It's
> intrinsically unverifiable, after all.
>
> My hypothesis is that it depends on whether the information influences
> other people in course of our work. Even though we're supposedly all
> about the content and not who adds it, we still factor in what we think
> we know about the editor.

Let's take 'em at their word, then, "I've been pretty upfront about using
disinformation"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/Archives/52#Profiles_don.27t_mesh
...


from_name: Delirium

body:
Angela wrote:
> That just leaves Danny, who only
> moved there because the office was there, and Carolyn and whoever
> joined since. I know Brion is moving there, but again *because* the
> office is there, so that's not a reason to keep the office there.

But that would also be true of just about everywhere else being
proposed.  Some people are proposing San Francisco, but neither Brion
nor Danny (nor Jimmy) lived in SF, either, so if the headquarters were
there they would've had to move to get to it.  We're an international
organization, and even our U.S. members are scattered across the U.S.,
so *anywhere* will be somewhere the vast majority of us don't live.

-Mark


from_name: William Pietri

body:
Josh Gordon wrote:
> On 3/1/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> My hypothesis is that it depends on whether the information influences
>> other people in course of our work.
>>
>
> That's a good way of framing it. I'm sure some obsessive or extremely
> curious person will go and pick through all of Essjay's interactions
> on talk pages on Catholic-related articles, and edits there, looking
> for evidence of negative effect.

That's definitely happening. This is the latest from the trawl, found by
user Rcade:

"This is a text I often require for my students, and I would hang my own
Ph.D. on it's credibility."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imprimatur&diff=prev&oldid=12614544

This was 12 April 2005, so per Geni's dates, it's well before Brant
turned up, and a month before he claimed the identity on his user page.
It was his fourth edit, and backing up his very first edit. That pokes a
pretty big hole in the just-throwing-the-stalkers-off claim.

This has to be very hard for somebody who has put so much into
Wikipedia. I hope he takes this chance to own up to this and any other
mistakes like this he's made on the project.

William

--
William Pietri <william at scissor.com>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 01/03/07, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hm. Methinks it is rather odd that an international organization does not
> have its head office in or near a world city. I mean, other than the cool
> wikijob and the nice weather what does St Pete / Tampa have in terms
> of services (including connections to like-minded organizations; not to
> mention easy access to consulates)?

I think to a great degree this is a modern shift; it's becoming less
and less vital for an organisation to have to be in a major city in
order to function, especially an organisation which is simply a
central point for a wide virtual network.

Plus, inertia. When you've started, and you're doing fine, it's rather
jarring to have to move when there's no pressing reason to. And WMF
does seem to be doing well enough with hiring good people in the St.
Petersburg area; it's not like we're scraping the barrel because of
being in the sticks.

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


body:
On 01/03/07, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Any organization that claims to be international in scope, would ideally
> be based in close proximity to representatives from many national governments.

One could argue the logical endpoint of that is to move wholesale to
Brussels... ;-)

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


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
On 3/1/07, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> GerardM wrote:
> Yeah, I guess I was living under a rock or something here myself.  This
> is a very new philosophy coming out that the board is going to be very
> directly involved with "global" policies that directly affect the
> content of each project.  The idea that each one of the 200 or so
> "active" Wikimedia projects will each have to submit some sort of "EDP"
> to legal counsel, overcoming language and local legal issues too, seems
> to be something so absurd as to be unworkable as well.
>

So set up 3-4 basic ones they can chose from/

> This top down attitude is something that I'm not very comfortable with,
> particularly when we are mainly dealing with voluntary community leaders
> here, especially when it comes to working with the nearly 5,000
> individual administrators who would bear the brunt of trying to
> implement both the culling of this content and watching over individual
> projects to make sure this sort of content doesn't creep back in.  I'm
> guessing that it is this group to whom the policy is really going to
> matter anyway.  All of these admins, with perhaps a few exceptions, are
> the most experienced of Wikimedia users and are largely the ones who
> perform the day to day tasks that make the projects what they are.
> Certainly they are helping to build the infrastructure and other aspects
> of the projects that help support content development.
>

I suspect quite a few of them would be relived they don't keep having
to fight simply to prevent policy allowing even more unfree content.

--
geni


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!


from_name: Angela

subject:
[Foundation-l] Wikimania - would you like to present or review the
	submissions?

body:
Wikimania, Wikimedia's annual global conference for the community, has
today released its call for participation.
http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Call_for_Particpation

We will shortly be accepting submissions for presentations, panels,
discussions, posters, and more. I would like to encourage all
community members to make a submission. Wikimania is the wiki
conference aimed at the Wikimedia community, so it's essential that
you are represented here. If there is something interesting about your
wiki that you want to share with 400 Wikimedians in Taipei this
summer, please respond to this call for participation.

We are also looking for volunteers to review the submissions made and
help us to choose what will be presented at Wikimania. Depending on
what you would like to review, please contact one of the following
people to let them know you would like to help.

Wikimedia Communities presentations: Angela Beesley:
http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Angela

Free Content presentations: Phoebe Ayers:
http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Brassratgirl

Technical infrastructure presentations: James Forrester:
http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jdforrester

Posters and Panels (all themes): Jakob Voss:
http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:JakobVoss

Artistic artifacts, Workshops, and Birds-of-a-Feather (all themes):
TzuChiang Liou:
http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:TzuChiang_Liou

Angela Beesley


list: textbook-l

subject:
[Textbook-l] Wikimania - would you like to present or review the
	submissions?


list: wikipedia-l

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Wikimania - would you like to present or review the
	submissions?


list: wiktionary-l

subject:
[Wiktionary-l] Wikimania - would you like to present or review the
	submissions?


body:
On 3/1/07, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
> >> I find myself looking on it as "foolish" rather than "unacceptable".
> >> There *are* stalkers and freaks who go after WP editors [...]
> >>
> >
> > While that is all absolutely true, it doesn't explain why he chose a
> > fake identity with a PhD and a tenured professorship. I can't see any
> > reason for that other than to get people to respect him more, which is
> > rather disappointing, to say the least. I take anything someone says
> > about themselves under a pseudonym with a pinch of salt, but I still
> > wouldn't expect that kind of deception.
> >
>
> That's a great point.
>
> Does anybody have numbers handy on his areas of contribution? If he
> never worked on the articles that he claimed false credentials in, then
> it would be a different thing for me.
>
>
> William

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Five_solas&diff=prev&oldid=15002257
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vicarius_Filii_Dei&diff=15429458&oldid=15429444

--
geni


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 01/03/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Erik Moeller wrote:

> > I agree. I find Ryan's behavior unacceptable and unconscionable.

> I find myself looking on it as "foolish" rather than "unacceptable".
> There *are* stalkers and freaks who go after WP editors, and our
> attitude has generally been that if it's not happening on WP itself,
> it's not our problem. So I can understand why Essjay thought of the
> false identity idea as a way to protect himself, and I might well have
> done it myself when I was his age, not thinking through all the possible
> ramifications. And he's not violating any WP policy, right?

I was most amused to see Daniel Brandt ranting about it, considering
that avoiding Brandt's blatant stalking and harassment of editors was
one of the main reasons for Essjay doing it.

> I'm not even sure we *could* write a policy requiring truthfulness on WP
> user pages. What if I said I worked at a job until 1993, and somebody
> out to get me calls the company and they report my last day as 4 Jan
> 1994? Should that be a bannable offense? Do we want to get into whether
> my intent was to misrepresent, or simply a faulty memory? In any case,
> somewhere we should counsel that deliberately providing false personal
> info on oneself is a Very Bad Idea, with all sorts of possible
> consequences, and that it's better to not say anything at all.

I occasionally have to remind myself that not everyone is me. Having
tangled with the Church of Scientology (who have tried to find out
where I work and get me fired more than once), I laugh off a pissant
like Brandt. Others may not be so cavalier.

- d.


from_name: Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)

body:
>
> I will make two points, though:
>
> One, as I've said before, it's easier to avoid some of the pseudonym
> problems if you just use your real name.  I don't think there's any
> cause to abolish pseudonyms, but I do suggest that people reconsider
> using them.  My opinion is that use of real names does not in fact
> bring any significant risk of real life consequences, and is simpler
> and ultimately better for you and the project.
>
> Two, keep in mind that anything you do related to Wikipedia may now
> get viewed by a potentially hostile press and outside community.
>
> -george william herbert

Those two observations seem inconsistent with each other.

Newyorkbrad


from_name: GerardM

subject: [Foundation-l] NIH Wiki fair

body:
Hoi,
There was the other day a one day seminar at the US National Institutes of
Health. Some really interesting presentations were given about Wikis as used
in government and in health care. There is a whopping 5:41 hour video about
it. Missing are the timestamps when a particular presentation starts. Barend
Mons and Larry Sanger gave two presentations that were of special interest
to me. I had a look at most of the presentations, I blogged about it and
noted the times of the start of their presentations.

I had another look at some of them and, I liked them a lot. I think Larry is
not a great presenter and after some more thought, the biggest reason why
they are only a thousand articles at the moment is because of them operating
in stealth mode. They had an article in Nature and I am convinced that a lot
of their good will evaporated over time.

Thanks,
     GerardM

Resources:
video:  http://videocast.nih.gov/PastEvents.asp?c=998
website: http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?NIHWikiFair_2007_02_28
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2007/02/nih-wiki-fair.htmlha


subject: [Foundation-l] NIH Wiki fair


body:
On 3/1/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> I was most amused to see Daniel Brandt ranting about it, considering
> that avoiding Brandt's blatant stalking and harassment of editors was
> one of the main reasons for Essjay doing it.

Nyet. Page on Brandt first appeared18:46, 28 September 2005

First claims to degrees appeared 07:58, 10 May 2005 and the full story
was in place by September.
--
geni


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
On 3/1/07, Yonatan Horan <yonatanh at gmail.com> wrote:
> On the other hand I expect many of them to do quite the opposite and ask why
> those guys over there who know nothing about *OUR* project want to limit our
> fair use when it's perfectly legal for us to do it (Note: I don't agree with
> this attitude, I'm just sure it exists at least in one wikipedia) and it
> makes our articles not look as "cool".
>
> -Yonatan
>

Those people are generally not the ones trying to enforce the
copyright policy. The attitude exists on en but is at present aimed at
the admins.
--
geni


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!


from_name: Ron Ritzman

body:
On 3/1/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:

> While that is all absolutely true, it doesn't explain why he chose a
> fake identity with a PhD and a tenured professorship.

Yes, if he thought it was necessary to create a fake identity to
protect himself then he should have given his alter ego an educational
level similar to his own and a job at more or less the same social
status as his real job.


subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:ATT

body:
On 3/1/07, John Lee <johnleemk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/1/07, Rob Smith <nobs03 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/28/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >  The aim was
> > > to get rid of the word "verifiability." This was causing confusion for
> > > new editors because they thought it meant they had to check that
> > > material was true, which is what "verify" usually means, rather than
> > > simply checking that it had been published elsewhere.
> > >
> > > Sarah
> >
> >
> > Hmm. The Latin root of verify means "true"; amazing the policy read
> > "verifiable, not true".  Like in the English language, just what the
> hell
> > did that ever mean, anyway?
>
>
> I think the meaning of "verifiable" is "can be verified", i.e. "can be
> shown
> to be true by referring to a secondary source". For me, there was never a
> problem about what "verifiability" meant...but then, I can see the
> rationale
> for the change. There's still potential for confusion.
>
> Johnleemk
>
> I always understood it to mean give equal weight to the lie if ( a ) were
deliberately engaged in intellectual dishonesty, or ( b ) too lazy to
investigate or just in the habit of sloppy research methods.


body:
On 3/1/07, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> However,
> certainly a lot of good talent, from programmers to publishers to venture
> capitalists, gets attracted to San Francisco and similar areas, which is one
> possible reason to move -- an in-person volunteer community could be built
> around the office as well as an online one.
>
> -- phoebe

I think that is better handled by regional chapters.

--
geni


from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
On 01/03/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Barcex wrote:
>
> >Besides this proposal is not viable because having a "fair use" repository
> >does not seem to be "fair use" I have to note that the Spanish-language
> >Wikipedia been enforcing the "only free material" policy for at least two
> >years, and closed its local upload recently (about 7 months ago). So the
> >eswiki users asked "why en can use fair use pictures of, say, music albums
> >while they can't" before closing local upload.
> >
> Disabling local upload was entirely their choice, and they could reverse
> that policy whenever they want.  Why should they complain about en:wp
> allowing fair use when they are responsible for their own problem.

I applaud es.wp for its forward thinking and boldness in being
explicit and clear about only supporting truly free content. IMO they
should be held up as the model for other projects to follow, not
en.wp.

It would be nice for the Board to acknowledge such mature decisions,
just as it may occasionally slap on the wrist those communities that
don't pay enough attention to the  core principles (fr.wq, en.wb to
some extent)...

regards
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!


body:
On 01/03/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:

> Lack of income taxes is a nice feature.  The cost of living is much
> more reasonable than say San Francisco or New York City, and you get
> much more living space for that money.  There are quite a few beaches
> and parks, which I suppose goes along with the relatively nice
> weather.  Unemployment is very low here right now.  Internet access is
> fairly good - we have Fios available in lots of places and EVDO is
> available throughout the Tampa Bay area.

And you can see for yourself what all those Carl Hiaasen novels are
talking about!

um, scratch that one.

- d.


from_name: Jeff Raymond

body:
Josh Gordon wrote:
> I will consider criticism of Essjay particularly valid when it is
> accompanied by a general call to eliminate pseudonymous editing of
> Wikipedia. The vast majority of editors on Wikipedia are anonymous,
> and I'm sure they have their various reasons, but anyone whose persona
> is not congruent with their real personality is doing exactly what
> Essjay did, on one level or another.

I wouldn't be against it.

Then again, you're still missing the point.  This isn't about anonymous
editing, this is about falsifying expert creditials.  No one would care
if he kept a normal guy persona.

-Jeff


from_name: Barcex

subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
Ray,

You will think that this is a joke, but it is real. Last year, during the
the time at eswiki we were discussing the "only free material policy" the
small pro-fair-use group (mostly composed of unaware newbies and well-known
trolls) claimed that eswiki wikimedians "were losing their dignity" with
this policy because enwiki wikimedians were able to upload fair use and they
did not. Yes, sounds crazy, but it happened!  :)

In my previous e-mail I just wanted to note that at eswiki we have always
had users asking why enwiki allows fair use and eswiki don't, even before
closing uploads. While here most of us clearly see the advantages of being
"totally free", people that is not in the free-culture movement and compares
enwiki and eswiki tends to believe that it is a disadvantage.

Barcex

2007/3/1, Ray Saintonge <saintonge en telus.net>:
>
> Barcex wrote:
>
> >Besides this proposal is not viable because having a "fair use"
> repository
> >does not seem to be "fair use" I have to note that the Spanish-language
> >Wikipedia been enforcing the "only free material" policy for at least two
> >years, and closed its local upload recently (about 7 months ago). So the
> >eswiki users asked "why en can use fair use pictures of, say, music
> albums
> >while they can't" before closing local upload.
> >
> Disabling local upload was entirely their choice, and they could reverse
> that policy whenever they want.  Why should they complain about en:wp
> allowing fair use when they are responsible for their own problem.  I
> can understand why Commons does not want fair use images there.  They
> don't provide any context for their pictures.
>
> Ec
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l en lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
Ray,

You will think that this is a joke, but it is real. Last year, during the
the time at eswiki we were discussing the "only free material policy" the
small pro-fair-use group (mostly composed of unaware newbies and well-known
trolls) claimed that eswiki wikimedians "were losing their dignity" with
this policy because enwiki wikimedians were able to upload fair use and they
did not. Yes, sounds crazy, but it happened!  :)

In my previous e-mail I just wanted to note that at eswiki we have always
had users asking why enwiki allows fair use and eswiki don't, even before
closing uploads. While here most of us clearly see the advantages of being
"totally free", people that is not in the free-culture movement and compares
enwiki and eswiki tends to believe that it is a disadvantage.

Barcex

2007/3/1, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>:
>
> Barcex wrote:
>
> >Besides this proposal is not viable because having a "fair use"
> repository
> >does not seem to be "fair use" I have to note that the Spanish-language
> >Wikipedia been enforcing the "only free material" policy for at least two
> >years, and closed its local upload recently (about 7 months ago). So the
> >eswiki users asked "why en can use fair use pictures of, say, music
> albums
> >while they can't" before closing local upload.
> >
> Disabling local upload was entirely their choice, and they could reverse
> that policy whenever they want.  Why should they complain about en:wp
> allowing fair use when they are responsible for their own problem.  I
> can understand why Commons does not want fair use images there.  They
> don't provide any context for their pictures.
>
> Ec
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Anthony

body:
On 3/1/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> I was going to suggest a more global-warming-proof location, given
> both sea level rise and hurricane issues for St Petersberg

I believe the sea level rise is scheduled to happen slowly enough that
there will be plenty of time to move, so I assume that's more of a
joke.

But the hurricane issues for St. Petersburg are very serious.  From
what I've read on the matter, St. Pete would be devastated by a direct
hit from a big hurricane.  Low lying, relatively large population,
connected to the rest of Florida mostly by bridges.  It'd be really
bad.

The good thing about hurricanes, as opposed to earthquakes, is that
with proper planning and adequate insurance, losses can be kept to a
minimum.  If the WMF doesn't already have a detailed plan in place,
there are still a few months left to make one.  Anyone in Zephyrhills
got a really big living room and a T1?  If you let me join the fun
I'll bring the chips.

Anthony


from_name: Slim Virgin

subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:ATT

body:
On 3/1/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> So it sounds like we are making clearer the distinction between:
> * the absolute necessity that everything we say be already said by
> someone else first
> * the preference (and in libel situations, necessity) that we cite
> those someone elses.
>
That's exactly right.


list: commons-l

subject:
[Commons-l] Wikimania - would you like to present or review the
	submissions?

body:
Wikimania, Wikimedia's annual global conference for the community, has
today released its call for participation.
http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Call_for_Particpation

We will shortly be accepting submissions for presentations, panels,
discussions, posters, and more. I would like to encourage all
community members to make a submission. Wikimania is the wiki
conference aimed at the Wikimedia community, so it's essential that
you are represented here. If there is something interesting about your
wiki that you want to share with 400 Wikimedians in Taipei this
summer, please respond to this call for participation.

We are also looking for volunteers to review the submissions made and
help us to choose what will be presented at Wikimania. Depending on
what you would like to review, please contact one of the following
people to let them know you would like to help.

Wikimedia Communities presentations: Angela Beesley:
http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Angela

Free Content presentations: Phoebe Ayers:
http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Brassratgirl

Technical infrastructure presentations: James Forrester:
http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jdforrester

Posters and Panels (all themes): Jakob Voss:
http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:JakobVoss

Artistic artifacts, Workshops, and Birds-of-a-Feather (all themes):
TzuChiang Liou:
http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:TzuChiang_Liou

Angela Beesley


from_name: geni

body:
On 3/1/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On 3/1/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Five_solas&diff=prev&oldid=15002257
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vicarius_Filii_Dei&diff=15429458&oldid=15429444
>
> In the AfD Essjay clearly used his fake credentials to support an
> argument. IMHO this is a bad faith action and absolutely something
> that could be used in an ArbCom case.
>

It is an open question if arbcom would have the authority to act in
this case and what they could do. Essjay is an arbcom member. While
arbcom have in the past critisised the actions of it's members they
have never taken action against someone apointed by Jimbo.

> At the very least, he owes the Wikipedia community an apology for this
> misrepresentation.
> --
> Peace & Love,
> Erik
>

Got one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=prev&oldid=111847534

--
geni


from_name: habj

body:
2007/3/1, Jakob Voss <jakob.voss at nichtich.de>:
>
> This year's conference will be held from August 3-5, 2007 in
> Taipei, Taiwan at Chien Tan Overseas Youth Activity Center
> <http://www.cyh.org.tw/center/center_bu.php?loginno=&buid=B>.

Is that url correct? I can reach http://www.cyh.org.tw/ but not the url
above.

/habj


from_name: Florence Devouard

subject:
[Foundation-l] [Fwd: From the makers of "24 hours on craigslist":
	Wikipedia!]

body:
fyi

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: From the makers of "24 hours on craigslist": Wikipedia!
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 08:39:04 +0100
From: The Wikipedia Documentary <info at wikidocumentary.org>
To: anthere at anthere.org

Hi there, documentary fans!

That's right, the makers of "24 hours on craigslist" have a new project:
"Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story", a documentary chronicling  the
rise and controversy behind the world's most popular encyclopedia.

While producer Michael Ferris Gibson ('24 hours on craigslist') and
Oscar-nominated filmmaker Sam Green ('The Weather Underground') helm the
production from San Francisco, you can check out the crew's continuing
video podcasts from the road and other information about the film here:
www.wikidocumentary.org

As Wikipedia is a global phenomenon-- recently becoming one of the top
ten websites in the world-- director Nic Hill ('Piece by Piece') is
currently traveling the planet with the crew of Underdog Productions,
interviewing Wikipedians and experts on free digital knowledge.

Best of all, the film's website is actually itself a wiki for the
production (currently maintained by the good folks at Object Adjective);
feel free to contribute ideas, interviewee suggestions, locations, even
your own audio and video to the production!  In the spirit of free
information, this is a non-profit project; so take comfort in knowing
that your contributions will go the worthy cause of exploring one of the
most important phenomena of our time!

Thanks!
-WikiDoc

_____________________________
Change address / Leave mailing list:
http://ymlp.com/u.php?Ferrisito+anthere at anthere.org
Hosting by  YourMailingListProvider


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
On 3/1/07, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> The idea that each one of the 200 or so
> "active" Wikimedia projects will each have to submit some sort of "EDP"
> to legal counsel, overcoming language and local legal issues too, seems
> to be something so absurd as to be unworkable as well.

There is absolutely no requirement for any project to develop an EDP.
They may simply not use any kind of "fair use" material until they do
so. Some may never want to do so.

The requirement to work directly with WMF counsel in the process is
not in the current draft resolution. However, we will probably try to
form a volunteer team (committee or workgroup) that coordinates this
process.

> Who is paying for this legal counsel?  The WMF?  Individual users?
> "local" chapters?  And what does "ratified" mean in this context?

With regard to local consultations, I would personally fully support
(within reasonable limits) providing financial assistance to the
project communities, either through the WMF or through chapters.

--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!


body:
On 3/1/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Five_solas&diff=prev&oldid=15002257
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vicarius_Filii_Dei&diff=15429458&oldid=15429444

In the AfD Essjay clearly used his fake credentials to support an
argument. IMHO this is a bad faith action and absolutely something
that could be used in an ArbCom case.

At the very least, he owes the Wikipedia community an apology for this
misrepresentation.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic


body:
Rich Holton wrote:
> Ron Ritzman wrote:
>
>> On 3/1/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> While that is all absolutely true, it doesn't explain why he chose a
>>> fake identity with a PhD and a tenured professorship.
>>>
>> Yes, if he thought it was necessary to create a fake identity to
>> protect himself then he should have given his alter ego an educational
>> level similar to his own and a job at more or less the same social
>> status as his real job.
> Why create an "alter ego" at all? Using a username like Essjay doesn't
> give anything away about him. How could stalkers find him based on that?
>
> If you're worried about stalkers, just remain anonymous. There's no
> reason to "throw them off the track" with an alter ego.
>

If I understand his argument rightly, it is that one is bound to leak,
so it's better to go with red herrings to throw stalkers off. That's
what I've gathered from his talk-page comments, though.

Not that I necessarily agree with the argument, or at this point even
have much confidence that such was his real motivation. But seeing some
of what people have theorized about me based on my edits, I don't think
it's a crazy argument.

William

--
William Pietri <william at scissor.com>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri


from_name: Yonatan Horan

subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
On the other hand I expect many of them to do quite the opposite and ask why
those guys over there who know nothing about *OUR* project want to limit our
fair use when it's perfectly legal for us to do it (Note: I don't agree with
this attitude, I'm just sure it exists at least in one wikipedia) and it
makes our articles not look as "cool".

-Yonatan

On 3/1/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/1/07, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> > GerardM wrote:
> > Yeah, I guess I was living under a rock or something here myself.  This
> > is a very new philosophy coming out that the board is going to be very
> > directly involved with "global" policies that directly affect the
> > content of each project.  The idea that each one of the 200 or so
> > "active" Wikimedia projects will each have to submit some sort of "EDP"
> > to legal counsel, overcoming language and local legal issues too, seems
> > to be something so absurd as to be unworkable as well.
> >
>
> So set up 3-4 basic ones they can chose from/
>
>
> > This top down attitude is something that I'm not very comfortable with,
> > particularly when we are mainly dealing with voluntary community leaders
> > here, especially when it comes to working with the nearly 5,000
> > individual administrators who would bear the brunt of trying to
> > implement both the culling of this content and watching over individual
> > projects to make sure this sort of content doesn't creep back in.  I'm
> > guessing that it is this group to whom the policy is really going to
> > matter anyway.  All of these admins, with perhaps a few exceptions, are
> > the most experienced of Wikimedia users and are largely the ones who
> > perform the day to day tasks that make the projects what they are.
> > Certainly they are helping to build the infrastructure and other aspects
> > of the projects that help support content development.
> >
>
> I suspect quite a few of them would be relived they don't keep having
> to fight simply to prevent policy allowing even more unfree content.
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!


from_name: John Lee

subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:ATT

body:
On 3/1/07, Rob Smith <nobs03 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/28/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >  The aim was
> > to get rid of the word "verifiability." This was causing confusion for
> > new editors because they thought it meant they had to check that
> > material was true, which is what "verify" usually means, rather than
> > simply checking that it had been published elsewhere.
> >
> > Sarah
>
>
> Hmm. The Latin root of verify means "true"; amazing the policy read
> "verifiable, not true".  Like in the English language, just what the hell
> did that ever mean, anyway?

I think the meaning of "verifiable" is "can be verified", i.e. "can be shown
to be true by referring to a secondary source". For me, there was never a
problem about what "verifiability" meant...but then, I can see the rationale
for the change. There's still potential for confusion.

Johnleemk


from_name: Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu-

body:
William Pietri wrote:
> Josh Gordon wrote:
>
>> That's a good way of framing it. I'm sure some obsessive or extremely
>> curious person will go and pick through all of Essjay's interactions
>> on talk pages on Catholic-related articles, and edits there, looking
>> for evidence of negative effect.
>>
>
> That's definitely happening...
>
> ...
>
> William
"Should you run across a theology contribution from me, it is important
to remember that I am a Catholic scholar, not a Catholic."

With a statement like that on his user page, he's practically asking for it.

-- Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu-


body:
On 3/1/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:

> While that is all absolutely true, it doesn't explain why he chose a
> fake identity with a PhD and a tenured professorship.

Yes, if he thought it was necessary to create a fake identity to
protect himself then he should have given his alter ego an educational
level similar to his own and a job at more or less the same social
status as his real job.


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2007-03-02

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

This is MediaWiki version 1.10alpha (r20113).

Reading tests from "maintenance/parserTests.txt"...
Reading tests from "extensions/Cite/citeParserTests.txt"...
Reading tests from "extensions/Poem/poemParserTests.txt"...

  18 still FAILING test(s) :(
      * URL-encoding in URL functions (single parameter)  [Has never passed]
      * URL-encoding in URL functions (multiple parameters)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)  [Has never passed]
      * BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Mixing markup for italics and bold  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: dt/dd/dl test  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Images with the "|" character in the comment  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, without trailing slash or name.  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, with lots of extra trailing slashes.  [Has never passed]

Passed 493 of 511 tests (96.48%)... 18 tests failed!


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:ATT

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

>How did that happen without me knowing about it?
>Anyway, the "key step of superceding WP:RS" as someone called it can only be
>done if it's included in the page.
>You don't want people to cite any random website.
>
>Mgm
>
>
>On 3/1/07, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>Rob Smith wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 2/28/07, Slim Virgin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The aim was
>>>>to get rid of the word "verifiability." This was causing confusion for
>>>>new editors because they thought it meant they had to check that
>>>>material was true, which is what "verify" usually means, rather than
>>>>simply checking that it had been published elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Hmm. The Latin root of verify means "true"; amazing the policy read
>>>"verifiable, not true".  Like in the English language, just what the hell
>>>did that ever mean, anyway?
>>>
>>>
>>What is verifiable is what was actually said;  that implies nothing
>>about the substantive truth of the statement.  It allows us to maintain
>>NPOV by including verifiable but contradictory statements on both sides
>>of an issue.  Only rarely are they both true.
>>
I certainly didn't intend to suggest that we were talking about anyone
who making only random citations.  In the case of an article about a
war.  Each party sincerely makes the claim that the other side was
responsible for beginning the conflict, and believes it to be true.  We
can verify what each side says, but we should not be trying to evaluate
who really did start it.

Ec


from_name: Husky

subject:
[Foundation-l] Wikimania - would you like to present or review
	the submissions?

body:
You missed an 'i' in 'Participation', the correct URL should be:

http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Call_for_Participation

-- Hay Kranen / [[User:Husky]]

On 3/1/07, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Wikimania, Wikimedia's annual global conference for the community, has
> today released its call for participation.
> http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Call_for_Particpation
>
> We will shortly be accepting submissions for presentations, panels,
> discussions, posters, and more. I would like to encourage all
> community members to make a submission. Wikimania is the wiki
> conference aimed at the Wikimedia community, so it's essential that
> you are represented here. If there is something interesting about your
> wiki that you want to share with 400 Wikimedians in Taipei this
> summer, please respond to this call for participation.
>
> We are also looking for volunteers to review the submissions made and
> help us to choose what will be presented at Wikimania. Depending on
> what you would like to review, please contact one of the following
> people to let them know you would like to help.
>
> Wikimedia Communities presentations: Angela Beesley:
> http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Angela
>
> Free Content presentations: Phoebe Ayers:
> http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Brassratgirl
>
> Technical infrastructure presentations: James Forrester:
> http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jdforrester
>
> Posters and Panels (all themes): Jakob Voss:
> http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:JakobVoss
>
> Artistic artifacts, Workshops, and Birds-of-a-Feather (all themes):
> TzuChiang Liou:
> http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:TzuChiang_Liou
>
> Angela Beesley
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:ATT

body:
Rob Smith wrote:

>On 3/1/07, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>Steve Bennett wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I do like the change. "Verifiability" was always terribly ambiguous
>>>and misleading. It never meant you had to verify the facts. It meant
>>>that if someone else wanted to verify them, they had a starting point.
>>>
>>>
>>Exactly.  Nothing more, nothing less.
>>
>>
>>>But it didn't really mean that either.
>>>
>>>
>>Why not?
>>
>>
>>>"Attributability" is much cleaner.
>>>
>>>
>>It looks like some kind of semantic game.  Capable of being attributed?
>>It suggests that we don't need to make an attribution, only assert that
>>it is possible.  Actually attributed statements (or attributions) are
>>then verifiable.
>>
>>
>"Verify" in the old sense meant patently false material was to be given
>equal weight with provable facts; this allowed for "obsolete and depracated"
>sources were abused to give '"equal weight"
>
I would never have read that into it.  As to obsolte data, it should be
a simple matter of shouwing a source where the claim that it was
deprecated was made

Ec


from_name: Gwern Branwen

body:
"NSLE (Wikipedia)" <nsle.wikipedia at gmail.com> writes:

> This was emphasised in both his RFA and RFB, too...
>
> And someone pointed out that warning signs were easy to spot -
just no-one
> did. Some who studied canon law with la-1 babel box?

Is that so really easy to spot? I don't believe it is, except with
the benefit of hindsight.

When I go to [[canon law]], I see "Canon law is the term used for
the internal ecclesiastical law which governs various churches,
most notably the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox
Churches and the Anglican Communion of churches." Now, this
doesn't directly say that 'canon law' with reference to Essjay
*must* be referring specifically to the Roman Catholic Church, and
it's easy to forget that most Catholic literature is in Latin even
now - I know that it is very easy for even Catholics to forget
that most historical Church literature is Latin (as my family is
Catholic, if I may claim some personal experience in this
matter). Indeed, I myself sometimes forget this, such as when I go
to read a Papal encyclical and unawares am taken to the official
English translation, never noticing the fine print saying the
original is in Latin.

Even if I were to consider this, I still couldn't be sure that
this is a contradiction: maybe canon law degrees just don't
require that much expertise in Latin, or maybe a modern canon law
degree deals with Greek and Aramaic texts primarily, or maybe they
can just use translations or English originals these days. Even if
I were a ultra-curious layman, if I search for the obvious [[canon
law degree]] (which didn't exist until I created it just now), I
(might) end up at [[Doctor of Canon Law]] - which never mentions
Latin except to translate the title! In fact, even after pondering
and searching a fair bit, I honestly have to say I am not sure
enough that a claim of canon law degree and la-1 babel box is
contradictory enough for me to enquire further (which definitely
does not AGF, as it at least implicitly is calling what was a very
respected user a liar).

To give an analogy, if I saw a user page of someone which claimed
to be a Doctor of computer science with a specialty in functional
programming, and it said that the person wasn't an expert in
assembly or Haskell or the ML family or a Lisp, I would not be
suspicious - looking up their Wikipedia entries, they are all
fairly hard and rarefied languages compared to more popular
languages like C or Java; but if I saw that they were unfamiliar
with types, or functions, or objects, then I could be sure they
were claiming unwarranted expertise. The latter would be more
suspicious to me than the former - although in point of fact,
being the knowledgeable person I am, I would know that it is very
very unlikely these days for someone to achieve a PhD while
specializing in functional programming *and* not know one of the
cited languages, and I could be appropriately suspicious. I
believe the warning signs were Essjay were more of the former
sort, ones that enough data was there for experts and very
interested laypersons to figure it out if they thought about it,
but just not enough for the rest of us unless we already know.

--
Gwern
Inquiring minds want to know.


subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:ATT

body:
Slim Virgin wrote:

>On 3/1/07, Rob Smith wrote:
>
>
>>On 3/1/07, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Steve Bennett wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Attributability" is much cleaner.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>It looks like some kind of semantic game.  Capable of being attributed?
>>>It suggests that we don't need to make an attribution, only assert that
>>>it is possible.  Actually attributed statements (or attributions) are
>>>then verifiable.
>>>
>>>
>The concept is simple and clean. All material published by Wikipedia
>must be attributable -- that is, it must be possible to attribute the
>material to a reliable source, which tells us it's not a Wikipedian's
>original research. But not all material must actually be attributed.
>It needs a source only if it's challenged, or if it's the kind of
>thing that's likely to be challenged (including contentious material
>in BLPs where sourcing is particularly important), and if it's a
>quotation.
>
>This way of formulating policy helps to clarify that not every single
>sentence in Wikipedia ("the sky is blue") needs a source. Editors have
>to use their common sense to ask themselves "is this something that's
>likely to be challenged?" and if the answer's yes, they should add a
>source.
>
>Forget the issue of "verifying" whether material is true. That's
>entirely unconnected to checking whether it has already been
>published, which is the only thing the policy's concerned about.
>
I don't think that we disagree on the principle objective.  As I see it
"verify" and "attribute" both accomplish this.

Ec


from_name: Rich Holton

body:
Ron Ritzman wrote:
> On 3/1/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> While that is all absolutely true, it doesn't explain why he chose a
>> fake identity with a PhD and a tenured professorship.
>
> Yes, if he thought it was necessary to create a fake identity to
> protect himself then he should have given his alter ego an educational
> level similar to his own and a job at more or less the same social
> status as his real job.
>

Why create an "alter ego" at all? Using a username like Essjay doesn't
give anything away about him. How could stalkers find him based on that?

If you're worried about stalkers, just remain anonymous. There's no
reason to "throw them off the track" with an alter ego.

-Rich


subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:ATT

body:
Rob Smith wrote:

>Now, how do we actually define an "obsolete or deprecated"
>source?  Does the original author have to deprecate themself, or by what
>standard can it be considered deprecated?  Secondly, one man's obsolete is
>another man's current news.  When current scholarship renders a half century
>of reputable, WP:ATT, etc citations obsolete, although some material from
>the older literate *still* has value, how do we mark as obsolete and
>deprecated older citations that are errantly being used to refute newer
>scholarship?
>
It's not up to us to do this.  If there is someplace that says that the
idea has become obsolete or deprecated, Just site the source in the same
way that you would anything else.  If someone is claiming that an old
source refutes a new one the citations for the two will still show dates
of pubblication.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:ATT

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 3/1/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>It looks like some kind of semantic game.  Capable of being attributed?
>>It suggests that we don't need to make an attribution, only assert that
>>it is possible.  Actually attributed statements (or attributions) are
>>then verifiable.
>>
>>
>This has been current practice for a long time. Anyone claiming (as
>Jimbo periodically does) that every statement actually has to be
>directly or indirectly referenced is not being realistic.
>
True enough.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:ATT

body:
Rob Smith wrote:

>>I always understood it to mean give equal weight to the lie if ( a ) were
>>
>>
>deliberately engaged in intellectual dishonesty, or ( b ) too lazy to
>investigate or just in the habit of sloppy research methods.
>
One begins with good faith, and most policies should work in a good
faith environment first, before starting to set things up to cope with lies.

Ec


body:
	<C2F697EE-9AF5-4917-A376-51E9C43F8DFA at prwatch.org>
	<45E765B8.5050601 at earthlink.net>
	<99c65f730703011756x711c74b5hf6835868850fd482 at mail.gmail.com>
	<38a7bf7c0703011828r2452ff82xf20143d55ef9520b at mail.gmail.com>
	<c52819d30703011830x4c0782d8i2aed75ac219fed6e at mail.gmail.com>
	<38a7bf7c0703011834x28ee9bc6pfb914a3c444b94a7 at mail.gmail.com>
	<52a8cf060703011842s2dca0df1qa405e56dda90650 at mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 01:33:28 -0500
In-Reply-To: <52a8cf060703011842s2dca0df1qa405e56dda90650 at mail.gmail.com> (Rob
	Smith's message of "Thu, 1 Mar 2007 19:42:58 -0700")
Message-ID: <86y7mgm9xj.fsf at elan.rh.rit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/22.0.94 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
--text follows this line--
"Rob Smith" <nobs03 at gmail.com> writes:

> On 3/1/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/1/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad at gmail.com>
   wrote:
>> > >
>> > > anything you do related to Wikipedia may now
>> > > get viewed by a potentially hostile press and outside
       community.
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > it's dinged us somewhat in the
>> press, based on the blogosphere at least.
>
> Actually this matter has been brewing for some time. Amazing it
took this
> long to bring attention to it.

True. It could've been discovered as far back as 7 January, if I
may recount the timeline of events. It was 7 February that Essjay
posted this:
<http://www.wikia.com/index.php?title=User:Essjay&oldid=66549>

On an interesting side note, it apparently wasn't until 21 January
that anyone noticed - that was when an anon user brought it up on
[[User talk:Essjay]]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&oldid=102161036>.
Given the anonymity, the name provided as a sig, and the linked
website, I think we can conclude it was in fact Daniel Brandt who
first noticed it
<http://www.whois-search.com/whois/216.60.71.100%20>.

It is also interesting to note that Essjay never replied as
[[User:Shanel]] quite quickly reverted it. (A lapse of judgement?
I suppose so, in the same way Yanksox had a lapse of judgement
deleting [[Daniel Brandt]]).

As it happened, I watch User talk:Essjay, and I saw Brandt's
comment, which worried me. I believe I discussed it on #wikipedia,
but there was little interest and so there the matter laid until
much later, 1 February, when [[User:Dev920]] apparently
independently noticed the discrepancy and left a note on the talk
page
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=next&oldid=104948143>;
Essjay's reply was the first confirmation and first appearance of
the stalker defense
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=next&oldid=104973443>.
Dev went away satisfied (interesting that Essjay's reply to Dev's
reply says that Essjay had been expecting these questions for some
time), and the conversation was archived, and there matters laid
(again) until later, in 5 February when [[User:Thatcher131]],
invoking Star Trek, brought up the archived conversation
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=next&oldid=105762432>.

This was shortly followed by a message from an anon
<http://www.whois-search.com/whois/199.33.32.40>, who quoted from
the now infamous _New Yorker_ article and expressed skepticism
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=next&oldid=105944722>.
I do not know whether this was Brandt following up his earlier
message - a whois traces back to Palo Alto's "City of Palo Alto,
Department of Information Resources", and I believe Brandt is
supposed to be using SBC IP ranges from San Antonio, although that
is not conclusive.

It was at this point that the merde began to hit the fan (for the
general section of the history, see
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&offset=20070212185915&limit=500&action=history>).

Another SBC IP <http://www.whois-search.com/whois/71.141.237.249>
chimed in
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=prev&oldid=106170762>;
note his claim that Brandt was already actively spreading the
news. A *fourth* IP
<http://www.whois-search.com/whois/70.231.130.196> edited the
third's
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEssjay&diff=106201706&oldid=106186328>.
[[User:Musical Linguist]] then censored the two IP's post,
apparently assuming they were from Brandt
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=next&oldid=106201706>.
Another aside: [[User:Stevietheman]] posted an odd message
referring to a Slashdot article
<http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/07/1442229>; if you read
the discussion, a prominent, moderated +5 comment by "Everyman"
(apparently well known as a pseudonym for Brandt) basically lays
out the issue.

By this point, you may be wondering just when things really start
happening. The first discussion that attracts any sort of
widespread attention was started by [[User:Purples]], two or three
days later on 10 February
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEssjay&diff=107237564&oldid=107198643>.
Purples's post started a discussion that included [[User:Peter M
Dodge]], myself ([[User:Gwern]]), yet *another* SBC IP
<http://www.whois-search.com/whois/68.90.179.253>,
[[User:Thatcher131]] again, [[User:Armedblowfish]],
[[User:Cbrown1023]], [[User:User:Grace Note]], [[User:Majorly]],
and well a lot of people. 13 and 12 February saw the majority of
posts on the topic and I believe brought it to the attention of
the wider community, eventually leading to the Signpost article,
community portal discussion, and the main Slashdot article.

I hope this chronology of events is helpful in showing that this
was in fact a slowly brewing PR crisis, however suddenly it may
seem to some to have arisen.

--
Gwern
Inquiring minds want to know.


from_name: Stanley "Toshmann" Ozoemena

subject:
[Textbook-l] Wikimania - would you like to present or review
	the submissions?

body:
Thanks, Angela!

Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:  Wikimania, Wikimedia's annual global conference for the community, has
today released its call for participation.
http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Call_for_Particpation

We will shortly be accepting submissions for presentations, panels,
discussions, posters, and more. I would like to encourage all
community members to make a submission. Wikimania is the wiki
conference aimed at the Wikimedia community, so it's essential that
you are represented here. If there is something interesting about your
wiki that you want to share with 400 Wikimedians in Taipei this
summer, please respond to this call for participation.

We are also looking for volunteers to review the submissions made and
help us to choose what will be presented at Wikimania. Depending on
what you would like to review, please contact one of the following
people to let them know you would like to help.

Wikimedia Communities presentations: Angela Beesley:
http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Angela

Free Content presentations: Phoebe Ayers:
http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Brassratgirl

Technical infrastructure presentations: James Forrester:
http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jdforrester

Posters and Panels (all themes): Jakob Voss:
http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:JakobVoss

Artistic artifacts, Workshops, and Birds-of-a-Feather (all themes):
TzuChiang Liou:
http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:TzuChiang_Liou

Angela Beesley

_______________________________________________
Textbook-l mailing list
Textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l

---------------------------------
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.


from_name: stvrtg

body:
On 3/2/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:

> This is the most concerning development yet. If he was lying about the
> rest of his real life, why would he tell the truth about his love
> life?

Rubbish. I think you just crossed the line into gossip.

Thoughts.

1. At issue is the question of a correction in public identity.
2. Wikipedia has an anti-credentialist ethos for a reason, and this reason
is the reason for Wikipedia's success.
3. The quote where Essjay pulls his "credentials" is taken out of context:

"Unless of course he is the Bishop of Rome. However, the censor, who is an
agent of the Roman Curia/Holy See may certainly place a text on the
"blacklist" of heretical publications. I believe the entry to be correct as
it reads, and I offer as my reference the text "Catholicism for Dummies" by
Trigilio (Ph.D./Th.D.) and Brighenti (Ph.D.). The text offers a Nihil Obstat
from the Rev. Daniel J. Mahan, STB, STL, Censor Librorum, and an Imprimatur
from the Rev. Msgr. Joseph F. Schaedel, Vicar General. This is a text I
often require for my students, and I would hang my own Ph.D. on it's
credibility."

Note that the book he recommends is "Catholicism for Dummies" which he adds
(almost certainly with a chuckle ) that "I would hang my own Ph.D on its
credibility."  I find it a bit funny myself.

4. If Essjay misrepresented himself in any substantial way in arguments
related to his claimed expertise, how is it that noone qualified in that
area suspected he wasnt a Phd/Thd?  I suspect the reason is because his
ventures into misrepresentation were quite limited to the cantankerous. I
suspect also that this fact might bother people who might have thought they
could tell just by looking at someones pixels.

5. We edit for different reasons (some of us even while naked), and I
suspect that the real reason people are upset is because they have a feeling
of being deceived, finding that theyve somehow based their respect on a
claimed credential, not on Essjays actual work. Disappointing, perhaps, but
disappointment carries some elevated expectation. What was the expectation?

- SV


from_name: Carolyn Doran

body:
Angela wrote:
> On 3/1/07, Nicholas Moreau <nicholasmoreau at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, but that's because they have money rolling in to fund the physical and
>> legal move. And I'm sure there's different things involved with a charity
>> and what essentially is a small business.
>>
>
> Wikia is incorporated in Delaware - it doesn't mean the office needs
> to be there.
>
> Is it really sensible to be looking for more staff in St. Pete when
> most of the people who used to be based there now aren't? Last time I
> was in the office, it was inhabited by Jimmy, Michael, Terry, and
> Danny. Michael and Terry now work from home. Jimmy is usually
> travelling and rarely in that office. That just leaves Danny, who only
> moved there because the office was there, and Carolyn and whoever
> joined since. I know Brion is moving there, but again *because* the
> office is there, so that's not a reason to keep the office there.
> Unless Wikimedia becomes more accepting of remote working, I think it
> is disadvantageous to keep it based in St Pete, especially now the
> search for a CEO is on.
>
> Angela
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
You may not be aware but there are 7 interns/volunteers in here daily,
Barbara, Sandy, Danny, Brion and Rob (the server guy who lives here and
works between the servers in Tampa and the office here & myself and we
are about to hire two more......just fyi


subject:
[Foundation-l] [Wikipedia Search on Mobile] Technical Contact
 Window for Nokia Taiwan

body:
Hsiang-Tai Chien wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On behave of Wikimania organization team seeking for sponsorship, we have got an request from Nokia Taiwan to seek for a technical contact window for Wikipedia Search on Mobile Devices. Is there anyone know whom we could provide to Nokia Taiwan for this request? And what's the opinion on this from the Foundation?
>
> Thanks and best regards,
> --
> Hsiang-Tai Chien (H.T.)
>
>
> Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia!
> My Wikipedia User Page
> My blog: Hsiang-Tai @ Taiwan
> My Flickr Photo Album
>
> Think Different, Do Smarter, Work for Joy!!
>
>
>
>  ___________________________________________________
>  ??????? ? ????????????????
>  http://messenger.yahoo.com.tw/
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
We are working with Nokia Global for their mobile device WAP feed. You
can have them contact the office and speak to myself, Carolyn Doran, or
Danny Wool regarding any live feed contracts. :)

Carolyn


from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
--- Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think to a great degree this is a modern shift; it's becoming less
> and less vital for an organisation to have to be in a major city in
> order to function, especially an organisation which is simply a
> central point for a wide virtual network.

IIRC, something like 70% of communication is non-verbal. Being in close proximity to many
like-minded organizations and representatives from other nations, would therefore be advantageous
to our goal. You simply are not going to find that in St Pete.

As an organization, we have already found that we can accomplish a great deal more with
face-to-face meetings that by using IRC, phones and email. Proximity will increase opportunities
for communication and thus relationship building.

The savings in travel expenses combined with increasing the opportunities to establish strategic
relationships (and funding opportunities) should more than offset the increased cost in rent and
in cost in living increases for staff. Those costs can and should be mitigated for by avoiding
actually having the office in a world city, but just outside it.

But that is a longer term strategy. Right now, I think we should try to make best use of our
current location. Thus the need I expressed to sell St Pete?s / Tampa?s good points and take full
advantage of that. However, I don?t think it would be a good idea, in the long term, to keep the
main office there (an office could continue to be there, just not the main one).

-- mav

____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for earth-friendly autos?
Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Larry Sanger weighs in on the Essjay incident

body:
Yeah, sad people have to get bashed.
This has nothing to do with fraud, he didn't try to get a teaching position
with his "invented persona". Apparently people think his contributions are
worth less if he's not a professor, which is utter nonsense.

Mgm

On 3/2/07, Keith Old <keithold at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> Larry Sanger has weighed in on this on the Citizendium blog.
>
>
> http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/03/01/wikipedia-firmly-supports-your-right-to-identity-fraud/
>
>
> "Now this is very sad.
>
> As Slashdot reports <http://slashdot.org/articles/07/03/01/1313251.shtml>,
> someone calling himself "Essjay" was interviewed for last year's *New
> Yorker
> * article about Wikipedia.  At the time, he gave *The New Yorker* the same
> story he gave to the Wikipedia community: he was a tenured professor of
> theology with some very impressive degrees.  Recently he revealed that he
> had been using a fake identity, and *The New Yorker* apologized to its
> readers <http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060731fa_fact> (see the
> bottom of the article, "Editors' Note") for having reporting his lies as
> fact.  It turns out that, far from being an overeducated religious
> thinker, he is (if we believe his latest story?skepticism is obviously
> warranted) 24 years old and degreeless, a kid named Ryan Jordan.  He also
> apparently thinks his lie was pretty clever, as well as quite morally
> justified, as edits on his user page show.  Now, this is pathetic, and yet
> more evidence of the broad moral decline of Western civilization and all
> that is holy, but in itself is no big deal.  No doubt Wikipedia's ranks
> are
> chock full of people who have misrepresented themselves.  That's not big
> news, if you know much about Wikipedia.
>
> No, the fascinating and tragic thing is Jimmy Wales' reaction.  *The New
> Yorker* reported that he said: "I regard it as a pseudonym and I don't
> really have a problem with it.""
>
> There is much more where that came from. Sanger probably sees it as a
> fillip
> for Citizendium which was starting to look like the encyclopedia
> equivalent
> of *Chinese Democracy.*
>
> *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Democracy*
>
> Regards to all,
>
> *Keith Old*
>
> **
>
> **
>
>
>
> Jimmy, say it ain't so.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
--- Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think to a great degree this is a modern shift; it's becoming less
> and less vital for an organisation to have to be in a major city in
> order to function, especially an organisation which is simply a
> central point for a wide virtual network.

IIRC, something like 70% of communication is non-verbal. Being in close proximity to many
like-minded organizations and representatives from other nations, would therefore be advantageous
to our goal. You simply are not going to find that in St Pete.

As an organization, we have already found that we can accomplish a great deal more with
face-to-face meetings that by using IRC, phones and email. Proximity will increase opportunities
for communication and thus relationship building.

The savings in travel expenses combined with increasing the opportunities to establish strategic
relationships (and funding opportunities) should more than offset the increased cost in rent and
in cost in living increases for staff. Those costs can and should be mitigated for by avoiding
actually having the office in a world city, but just outside it.

But that is a longer term strategy. Right now, I think we should try to make best use of our
current location. Thus the need I expressed to sell St Pete?s / Tampa?s good points and take full
advantage of that. However, I don?t think it would be a good idea, in the long term, to keep the
main office there (an office could continue to be there, just not the main one).

-- mav

____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/


from_name: wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Correction to New Yorker Article: what is a
	"pseudonym?"

body:
I don't like Jimbo saying "it's just a pseudonym."

Anonymity is OK. Lying is bad.

When I was a kid my mom told me that what makes a lie a lie is not its literal truth or falsehood, but whether there is an intention to deceive.

Now, pseudonyms e.g. of authors are sometimes mildly deceptive, as when a pulp magazine wants its readers to think that they have an "exclusive" on an author, when in fact the stories are the production of a prolific writer who churns out content for all of them. Or when an author wants to maintain a separation between his serious work and his mystery novels.

But if a flyleaf says that, say, that "Lewis Carroll is the pseudonym of a lecturer in mathematics at Christchurch, Oxford. In his leisure time, he is a serious amateur photographer," well then he darn well _better_ be a lecturer in mathematics at Christchurch, Oxford and a serious amateur photographer.

(Descriptions, like Lemony Snicket's, which are clearly tongue-in-cheek are OK. Readers are supposed to get the joke, so they are not intended to deceive).

When it comes to pseudonyms, there's no need to disclose anything... but you can't say something true, don't say anything at all.

I say Essjay's self-description is a lie.