body:
Hi, Jimbo,

You are quite right that the inactive Wikipedias are not being cared
for, except by some dedicated Wikipedian admins from the outside.  So if
indeed someone has been a troublemaker (i.e. editing in bad faith) on
those inactive WPs, he or she should be judged accordingly, and I think
you and others have the trust of the larger community to make such a
decision.  But again, I am not comfortable with the idea of a global ban
(except en:).  I think each of the active WPs should consider the record
in the context of actual edits performed in each edition.  That is,
assume he or she is on a "white list" for all WPs, and only ban him/her
_locally_ for violating specific community policies (which could well
differ).  It could mean that a persistent editor would need to be banned
by and from all WPs, one by one, but so be it.  (It maybe enough, IMO,
that all the WPs be notified that so-and-so is believed to have edited
in bad faith on one or more WP, and leave it at that.)

It was along this line that I proposed to remove Mark from a wide "black
list" as regards zh-min-nan (to be confirmed or rejected by other
editors there, of course).  In that sense I was "vouching" for Mark, and
only in that sense (given my limited attempt to follow the discussion).

Anyway, I hope things work out for all.

~~~~

Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales ti 2004/11/15 EP 04:44 sia-kong:
> Henry H. Tan-Tenn wrote:
>
>>>You are banned from editing at any wikipedia site other than en.
>>
>>Personally (and with all due respect to Jimbo), I'd prefer that
>>judgement be left to individual Wikipedias to decide, per their usual
>>policy of banning users.
>
>
> The problem is: he has been making annoying edits on wikipedias that
> do not have any current users.  He removed all the interlanguage links
> from one, and replaced the standard boilerplate text with his own
> message and email address.  When Angela fixed this, he reverted her.
>
> This is just one example of an ongoing pattern of difficult behavior.
>
> He is one of the main factors forcing us to pursue a policy locking or
> closing small wikis, which is of course ironic, since he is an
> activist for small language wikis.
>
> He and I had a partly constructive dialogue about these issues earlier
> today in IRC, and I am hopeful that some compromise can be worked out.
>
> I admire his energy and enthusiasm, and I find him to be very bright.
> But there have been several incidents that are just problematic to say
> the least (look up the unresolved issue of sockpuppets for example),
> and his hostility and personal attacks against people who are highly
> respected in the community don't help at all.
>
> I took this action at a global level rather than at an individual
> project level, because that's where the problem has arisen.
>
> If you want him to be able to edit at zh-min-nan, then that is enough
> for me.  He can do that.  If anyone wants to vouch for him anywhere
> else (in an active project), email me and it will be done.
>
> --Jimbo


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Angela

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: no:/nb:/nn:/etc. - modified suggestion

body:
> > http://nb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noreg
> > Yes, this does take you to the Norsk (bokm?l) article Norge, where you can
> > then click on the interwiki link to Nynorsk (soon probably to be renamed
> > Norsk (nynorsk)) to be taken to the Nynorsk article Noreg. I think this is
> > a relatively minor problem that is outweighed by the general advantages of
> > the drafted solution.

If no: were moved to nb:, I think it would be best for
http://nb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noreg to redirect to
http://nb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norge
since it's an nb URL, so people will expect Bokm?l.

However,
http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noreg would make more sense directing to
http://nn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noreg
since if people are looking for Noreg rather than Norge, they're more
likely expecting an article in Nynorsk than Bokm?l.

It may be possible to start with moving no: to nb: and having all
current pages redirect from no: to nb: to prevent breaking any
external links to no:, but to leave no: editable so that people can
make decisions about whether the no->nb redirect would be better
replaced with a no: -> nn redirect. In cases where there was no
consensus over where the redirect should go, a disambiguation page
could be made. A policy could be created that says the only edits on
no: must be redirects or disambiguation page to prevent any new
articles being created there.

> It sounds to me
> like some of the people here are taking it for granted that the bokm?l community
> will always stay bigger than the nynorsk community, "so why not just resign and
> give the bokm?l camp exclusive rights to the common language code"?

At the moment, nb is bigger than nn, so it makes sense for no: to
redirect to nb, but if we leave open the possibility of creating
manual redirects or disambiguation pages at no, this could change over
time.

> The best argument for creating (not keeping!) a bokm?l Wikipedia on "no:"
> that I have heard so far, came from Lars Alvik:
>  > no: and nn: is right next to each other, compared to nb: and nn:
> (nl: in between),
>  > so in a alfabetizied interwikilist, nynorsk and bokm?l would get splitted.

Interlanguage links can be put in any order you like. This isn't a
technical matter. There have already been discussions on the Hebrew
Wikipedia about sorting links by relevance of a language to a topic
rather than alphabetically (so the Hebrew page on France would have
the fr: interwiki before the others), some Wikipedias prefer to sort
by order of local language whilst others do it by order of language
code, and a poll on the English Wikipedia showed no consensus on how
links should be ordered
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Language_order_poll ).
Therefore, I don't see a reason why there couldn't just be a policy
that says nb and nn should be next to each other.

Angela.


from_name: Lars Alvik

body:
P? 15. nov. 2004 kl. 19.50 skrev Angela:

>>> http://nb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noreg
>>> Yes, this does take you to the Norsk (bokm?l) article Norge, where
>>> you can
>>> then click on the interwiki link to Nynorsk (soon probably to be
>>> renamed
>>> Norsk (nynorsk)) to be taken to the Nynorsk article Noreg. I think
>>> this is
>>> a relatively minor problem that is outweighed by the general
>>> advantages of
>>> the drafted solution.
>
> If no: were moved to nb:, I think it would be best for
> http://nb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noreg to redirect to
> http://nb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norge
> since it's an nb URL, so people will expect Bokm?l.

I think so too.

> However,
> http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noreg would make more sense directing to
> http://nn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noreg
> since if people are looking for Noreg rather than Norge, they're more
> likely expecting an article in Nynorsk than Bokm?l.
>
> It may be possible to start with moving no: to nb: and having all
> current pages redirect from no: to nb: to prevent breaking any
> external links to no:, but to leave no: editable so that people can
> make decisions about whether the no->nb redirect would be better
> replaced with a no: -> nn redirect. In cases where there was no
> consensus over where the redirect should go, a disambiguation page
> could be made. A policy could be created that says the only edits on
> no: must be redirects or disambiguation page to prevent any new
> articles being created there.

I don't know, the disambiguation thing sounds more or less like
complicated to maintain, in my opinion. Why not go for the serverside
redirect and let it be that way, like Utne suggested. But the nynorsk
redirects is totally ok. I think that "common" names should be
redirected stright to bokm?l, since that is the most used language.

>> It sounds to me
>> like some of the people here are taking it for granted that the
>> bokm?l community
>> will always stay bigger than the nynorsk community, "so why not just
>> resign and
>> give the bokm?l camp exclusive rights to the common language code"?

Hr. Lunde: It's two bloody letters god damn it. You have got your move
now you start asking for more?

Yes i'm probably alittle bit aggresive there, but hey, when you have
put down so much work in something and someone suggest to do the polite
version of killing it i tend to get a little bit upset.

> At the moment, nb is bigger than nn, so it makes sense for no: to
> redirect to nb, but if we leave open the possibility of creating
> manual redirects or disambiguation pages at no, this could change over
> time.

Considering the size of the bokm?l userbase compaired to the nynorsk
one i belive it'll stay this way for long, but hey, it's nothing wrong
with a little competition.

mvh.


list: wikien-l

from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] Just because no one helps you...

body:
Robert wrote:

>In theory, yes.  In practice, no.  On alternative medicine
>articles we had a group of POV warriors (such as Mr.
>Natural Health) making non-stop reversions, deleting
>mention of critical studies and peer-reviewed data.  Yet
>very few people with a background in medicine or science
>were willing to edit these articles, as they did not want
>to put up with the harassment.
>
>
I think this is likely to become less of a problem in the future, due to
some arbitration changes.  Initially, the idea was that the arbitration
committee had a fairly weak mandate, and so would only act if the
evidence was overwhelming and there was a strong case to be made.  This
is a high threshold and takes time, both to sort through the evidence
and to actually sit down and write a court-style "opinion of the
committee".  In the meantime, people like MNH and Irismeister and so on
went around reverting and troublemaking like mad until they were finally
banned.

Rather recently, the committee's started issuing temporary injunctions
more quickly with a lower threshold of evidence and explanation.  So if
it seems likely that someone ought to be banned, we just go ahead and do
it temporarily, and then consider at length once that's been done.

-Mark


from_name: Ulf Lunde

body:
> Hr. Lunde: It's two bloody letters god damn it. You have got your move
> now you start asking for more?

Hr. Alvik,

As long as "no:" does not prohibit contributions in nynorsk, I have
no reason to request that it be moved to "nb:".   And guess what?
I never have!

Perhaps you haven't read my proposals?  I have never been in favor of
moving all articles away from "no:", nor have I supported (in Wikipeida-l,
in the Wikipedia discussions, or anywhere else) a "move" of any current
Wikipedias.

I have advocated from the start to keep status quo for "no:", in the hope
that it can remain what it is today: a common Norwegian Wikipedia.

However, it seems that a majority of people here would prefer a move.

> Yes i'm probably alittle bit aggresive there, but hey, when you have
> put down so much work in something and someone suggest to do the
> polite version of killing it i tend to get a little bit upset.

You have my sympathy, and if "no:"-Wikipedia does suffer, I for one
may take some of the blame, since "nb:" was my request.  However,
I doubt that a (second) split of "no:" will deter many Wikipedians from
continuing to contribute.  Some of them will shift their focus to either
"nb:" or "nn:", that's all.

I think it is in everyone's interest that we square the naming and location
issues while the Norwegian Wikipedias are still relatively small.

> > If no: were moved to nb:, I think it would be best for
> > http://nb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noreg to redirect to
> > http://nb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norge
> > since it's an nb URL, so people will expect Bokm?l.
>
> I think so too.

No one disputes that.  (I guess I did not include enough context in my
previous reply.  It should be read together with Olve Utne's preceding
post.)

> I think that "common" names should be
> redirected stright to bokm?l, since that is the most used language.

It would be really convenient for bokm?l if most people believed in
that kind of reasoning, for that would certainly guarantee that bokm?l
would still be the bigger of the two, say, fifty years from now!  (Self-
fulfilling prophecy...)

> Considering the size of the bokm?l userbase compaired to the nynorsk
> one i belive it'll stay this way for long, but hey, it's nothing wrong
> with a little competition.

Why does it have to be competition?  I would much prefer cooperation!

Ulf Lunde


body:
P? 15. nov. 2004 kl. 21.42 skrev Ulf Lunde:

>> Hr. Lunde: It's two bloody letters god damn it. You have got your move
>> now you start asking for more?
>
> Hr. Alvik,
>
> As long as "no:" does not prohibit contributions in nynorsk, I have
> no reason to request that it be moved to "nb:".   And guess what?
> I never have!
>
> Perhaps you haven't read my proposals?  I have never been in favor of
> moving all articles away from "no:", nor have I supported (in
> Wikipeida-l,
> in the Wikipedia discussions, or anywhere else) a "move" of any current
> Wikipedias.

What proposals? I've read the first one, i havn't seen anyone since
then, that's formulated as a proposal and not written between the
lines.

> I have advocated from the start to keep status quo for "no:", in the
> hope
> that it can remain what it is today: a common Norwegian Wikipedia.

> However, it seems that a majority of people here would prefer a move.

I don't prefer a move, i was happy with the current situation. But
since all the fuss started i suppose something should happend, i don't
like to move it, but hey if it please the nynorsk people why not. I
don't object to the move, since the interwikilinks wouldn't get messed
up. But i strongly object to a splitting, it would fork the manpower
and workhours and create total chaos.

>> Yes i'm probably alittle bit aggresive there, but hey, when you have
>> put down so much work in something and someone suggest to do the
>> polite version of killing it i tend to get a little bit upset.
>
> You have my sympathy, and if "no:"-Wikipedia does suffer, I for one
> may take some of the blame, since "nb:" was my request.  However,
> I doubt that a (second) split of "no:" will deter many Wikipedians from
> continuing to contribute.  Some of them will shift their focus to
> either
> "nb:" or "nn:", that's all.
>
> I think it is in everyone's interest that we square the naming and
> location
> issues while the Norwegian Wikipedias are still relatively small.
>
>>> If no: were moved to nb:, I think it would be best for
>>> http://nb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noreg to redirect to
>>> http://nb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norge
>>> since it's an nb URL, so people will expect Bokm?l.
>>
>> I think so too.
>
> No one disputes that.  (I guess I did not include enough context in my
> previous reply.  It should be read together with Olve Utne's preceding
> post.)
>
>> I think that "common" names should be
>> redirected stright to bokm?l, since that is the most used language.
>
> It would be really convenient for bokm?l if most people believed in
> that kind of reasoning, for that would certainly guarantee that bokm?l
> would still be the bigger of the two, say, fifty years from now!
> (Self-
> fulfilling prophecy...)

*Choghs* Yeah right :P, nynorsk isn't excatly growing, with the
sentralization going on and everything. Also Finnmark and Oslo is
thinking about ditching their teaching in nynorsk as a side language.
But, hey this is derailing.

If there is going to be change i certiantly support Utnes version, and
being probably the only primary bokm?lspeaking/writing (i accualy speak
a dialect that's as bokm?l as you get it, generic ?stlending,
eventhough i've heard from nynorskusers that there's no such thing, but
derailing) i think that ought to count for something.

mvh. Lars Alvik


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Fwd: Banned from editing except on en

body:
>> "annoying edits" are not grounds for banning on ANY Wikipedia. Do they
>> violate policy? Not that I can see. Do they disrupt the workings? Hah!
>> There are no workings.

> Yes, it does disrupt the workings. Removing links to the pages that new users need to
> read to find out what Wikipedia is and how they can help are vital to the main page
> before a project has any users.

But locking a Wikipedia doesn't disrupt the workings? As I noted
before, the removal of interlanguage links was purely unintentional.

>> Replacing boilerplate text in English with text
>> in the target language may be annoying to YOU, but to speakers of that
>> language it is more likely to be seen as a gesture which seeks to
>> invite them to participate and make them more comfortable.

> The "text in the target language" is only any use if it makes sense in that language. You
> admitted you don't speak these languages so how do you know it makes sense? The
> text also needs to be relevant to Wikipedia. Adding a paragraph about the National
> Language Services that you copied directly from some website and removing all
> Wikipedia-related content is not helpful to those who speak the language.

1. It does make sense in these languages.

2. When on earth did I admit I don't speak these languages?

3. It's more helpful than a paragraph of what might as well be a bunch
of squiggles.

> The [http://ve.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Main_Page&diff=2&oldid=1 Venda Main
> Page] is copied directly from [http://www.cyberserv.co.za/users/~jako/lang/ventexts.htm].

No, it's not. It's copied from
http://www.dac.gov.za/about_us/cd_nat_language/national_lang_service/national_lang_service%20.htm

>> As I noted before, I am not 100% sure of the things I wrote in
>> articles on bo: or sq: (but I didn't write hundreds of articles, and I
>> know they're at least not totally gibberish), but unless I note
>> otherwise for any other text I post, I do not have any doubt that it
>> is 100% correct (unless it's not grammatically, in which case I can
>> easily do some fact-checking before posting)

> You were asked to stop doing this on [[sq:]] by at least one of the users there who is
> fluent in Albanian. Does this not tell you something about the appropriateness of your
> edits?

Hmm. Let's see. If you'll read the logs of the chat, Dori apparently
agreed with the rationale and the only reason he asked me to stop was
a fear that I was going to create a lot when in fact I only created a
few.

Does this not tell you something about your incompetence when it comes
to individual incidents?

>> Perhaps we should show these people the edit you are talking about?
>> http://fj.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Main_Page&oldid=1459

>> As you can clearly see, compared to the version that was there
>> previously, it is preferrable because there is actually content IN THE
>> TARGET LANGUAGE (if you wish to assert it is somehow incorrect, I
>> would respectfully request that you confirm that beforehand with a
>> professional translator or areal linguist unless you claim to speak
>> the language yourself and can offer an explanation or correction)

> Firstly, I did check with a user who knows Fijian. Secondly, directing users to your email
> address when you don't speak the language isn't going to help them.

Oh? Who might that be? And what did they tell you it means? Because if
it has you so upset (don't say "I'm not upset" because you are), I
would be glad to work things out with them and inevitably it would
either come out that they speak some Fijian from an alternate
universe, or they told you what it means in real Fijian and you got
upset about it for no particular reason.

And if we have a Fijian-speaking user, why on earth did we have not
even a shred of content in Fijian? Other Wikipedias where we have
users but they're not interested at least have a short paragraph in
the target language either welcoming them, telling them waht Wikipedia
is, inviting them to contribute, etc...

>> However Angela did indeed revert a contribution on another Wikipedia...
>> Since she simply specified
>> in the edit summary that it was "vandalism", I reverted her edits with
>> an edit summary "isibusi vandalism" - she had removed legitimate,
>> target-language content and replaced it with content in English.

> [http://ve.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Main_Page&diff=4&oldid=3
> This diff] is presumably what you are talking about. In what way was this content
> legitimate? Being in the right language is not enough if that content says nothing about
> Wikipedia.

"Wikipedia Tshivenda" is clearly about Wikipedia. Or do you have word
from some phantom Venda-speaking user that Wikipedia is Venda for
"three-eared flying monkeys"?

> Similarly, removing everything useful and replacing it with a few odd words you picked up
> in a language is not helpful
> ([http://kj.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Main_Page&oldid=2 kj: example])

Hmm, and how do you know what that says? You know Kwanyama? In that
case, I'm sure we can discuss this and we'll reach a conclusion that
either we are talking about a different "Kwanyama", or, well, you
won't really be able to speak it at all because it's not "a few odd
words" I picked up in the language. Or is it that you've asked a
Kwanyama-speaking user?

>> If the article is deleted and the mainpage is reverted NOW, the only
>> possible explanation would be that people don't like Venda, and for
>> this reason I don't think it will happen.

> Don't like Venda or don't like potential copyright problems? Do you have permission from
> the author of [[te:Tshumelo ya Nyambo dza Lushaka]] to release it under the GFDL?

There is no article at
http://te.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tshumelo_ya_Nyambo_dza_Lushaka because
that title is in the Venda language in the Roman alphabet rather than
the Telugu language in the Telugu abugida.

But if you meant the article at ve: (Remember, it's Venda, not Tenda,
and it's Telugu and not Velugu), well, there is no copyright issue
because, being produced by the government itself, there IS no
copyright.

This can easily be inferred by 1. going to the page you earlier
claimed I copied teh text from and 2. noticing that the other text in
Venda cites a source and bears a notice that permission was given by
the publishing house, whereas the NLS one says nothing, as it was
written originally by the government, for the people and has never
been distributed for profit.

> After your behaviour in trying to remove alleged copyright violations from toki pona, edits
> such as [http://tn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tirelo_ya_Dipuo_tsa_Boset%C5%A1haba this on
> tn:] appear quite surprising. Do you have permission to use this text? Or are you happy
> to contribute copyright violations as long as they are "in the target language"?

I am not happy to contribute copyright violations in any language.
Well, I am, but it's illegal and it might hurt Wikipedia, so I
wouldn't.

After people accused me of being stupid (and that's just one
"respected community member". not you though; I'd not expect you to
say that) for my lack of knowledge of copyright law and Wikipedia
policy and the fact that I did not get the correct answer from a
cursory Google for answers, I find it quite ironic that you are
accusing me of a copyvio in even more unquestionable situations.
Whether or not languages are copyrightable has been decided in court,
and not internationally, and at the time at least (not sure about now)
the official Toki Pona website had a copyright notice which was
ambiguous in that it could be interpreted to mean that the site was
copyrighted OR that the language was copyrighted, and there was no
sort of document whereby Ms Kisa released it under the terms of the
GFDL... but the sort of material I posted is public domain, no
questions asked, and was at no time copyrighted, which should have
been apparent after a cursory Google search where you looked at the
first 5 or 7 results, as I did viz Toki Pona.

Mark

"88 885 489 8 at 172 5 887280828 08789208, 42 8926807 082808@ 880 187 8
482... 8 482... 589897, 11292 81 8 at 08?"


from_name: csherlock at ljh.com.au

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: 3RR policy change

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:
> That is nasty. And can produce a lot of needless work. You have to look at
> the changes they made and save them if they have not made it too
> complicated, but definitely they are leading you into a trap. If you revert
> they have this complaint that you removed useful edits. I guess you have to
> balance the situation. If they have created reams of work by combining a
> revert with an edit it is their responsibility not yours to do all the extra
> work involved. This kind of behavior leads to two versions of the articles.
>
> It's hard for someone not closely following the action to catch this sort of
> thing.
>
> Fred

You mean a bit like this one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:2004_U.S._Election_controversies_and_irregularities&diff=7480161&oldid=7480149

Ta bu shi da yu


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: 3RR policy change

body:
OK, this happened to me today in [[Exploding whale]]. Mikkalai remove a
whole chunk of text, which I reverted. He then reverted me. I modified
it to try to compromise, and commented on talk, and I messaged him
explaining what happened. He reverted again. I tried to modify again to
compromise, again I placed a note on talk, and in the edit summary I
asked him politely to go to talk before reverting. I also placed a
message on his page. He reverted again. I tried to clarify, left
*another* message on the talk page (responded to his comment), and left
a message on his talk page again. He reverted again.

I then listed the article on [[WP:RFC]] and left a note on his talk page
telling him I had done this. I didn't revert any more, I just explained
that I wanted outside comment. Sure enough, Markalexander100 tried to
compromise also. He reverted again, then he changed his mind and
attempted to compromise. This was all worked out well, though I do
regret that I was told by Mikkalai to "Go hunt zionist revisionist
deniers" - whatever that means (I'm sure it can't be good!)

My faith in the 3RR process is restored AND satisfied.

Ta bu shi da yu

Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> I think it's more likely to make POV warriors use sockpuppets and
> thereby force other editors to either let them get away with it or
> risk being blocked.  Nobody likes to work, but POV warriors are
> generally more willing to work.
>
> Further, the way I interpret the 3RR, if there were 2 different POV
> warriors, each reverting to different POV versions, an NPOV warrior
> would lose.  Consider the edits:
>
> original version: Jerusalem is city which is claimed by both Israel
> and the Palestinean Authority.
> Warrior 1: Jerusalem is a city in Israel.
> you: Jerusalem is city which is claimed by both Israel and the
> Palestinean Authority.
> Warrior 2: Jerusalem is a city in Palestine.
> you: Jerusalem is city which is claimed by both Israel and the
> Palestinean Authority.
> Warrior 1: Jerusalem is a city in Israel.
> you: Jerusalem is city which is claimed by both Israel and the
> Palestinean Authority.
> Warrior 2: Jerusalem is a city in Palestine.
> you: Jerusalem is city which is claimed by both Israel and the
> Palestinean Authority.
> Warrior 1: Jerusalem is a city in Israel.
>
> In this scenario, the person restoring the NPOV version has broken the
> 3RR, but the POV revert warriors have not.  Sure, you can try to get
> people on your side, but it takes more than twice as many people on
> the NPOV side as it does on the POV sides.  Add in a few vandals who
> put in "Jerusalem sucksorz!!!!" and give a few of them multiple IP
> addresses...
>
> I think the 3RR is a great guideline.  In fact, Jimbo has convinced me
> to limit myself to one revert per day in almost all cases.  But to be
> a strict rule, I think it has to be perfect, not just good.
>
> Anthony
>
>
>>The 3RR doesn't have to be perfect, IMO, it just has to be better than what
>>we've got now. At least this will make POV warriors hav eto work more to
>>fight their revert wars, which should help reduce their number. Nobody
>>likes to work :).


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Mis-use of donated money by Wikipedia user
	"Neutrality".

body:
Sheesh. He make it sound like he personally donated the $50,000, and
Neutrality is rolling in cash!

Neutrality, can I have some of that Wikipedia money, you greedy so and so?

Ta bu shi da yu

wikiuser at cyber-rights.net wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I SENT THIS WITH MY ORIGINAL MESSAGE but it didn't arrive so here
> it is now:
>
> FURTHER He's blocked me, and 350 other computers, for a month with
> no
> justification whatsoever. SEE BELOW. I want to make a formal
> complaint
> to The Wikipedia Foundation about him and to formally apply to have
> the
> viscious abuser "Neutrality" booted off The Wikipedia permanently;
> for
> mis-using his position, and the $50,000 donated, and therefore
> (officially acting as The Wikipedia Foundation's agent) breaking a
> Federal law due to his corruptly mis-using these funds.
>
>
> "Wikipedia, the "free" encyclopedia.
> 21:28, 13 Nov 2004, Neutrality blocked #11140 (expires 21:28, 14
> Nov
> 2004) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used
> by
> "[[User:WikiUser|WikiUser]]". The reason given for WikiUser's block
> is:
> "'''Maliciously acting in bad faith to disrupt Wikipedia'''".)
> editing in bad faith, personal attacks)
>
> 20:22, 13 Nov 2004, Neutrality blocked WikiUser (expires 20:22, 13
> Dec
> 2004) (contribs) (Maliciously acting in bad faith to disrupt
> Wikipedia)"
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
> Version: Hush 2.4
>
> wkYEARECAAYFAkGXleEACgkQxgdf4hnhuOwlegCfWjt1sBTKzDWHHHEKD831VfljA0UA
> oIlkOvyo2jkDVigaGtjo4WJ9IZUy
> =6vxx
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
>
> Get your free encrypted email at http://www.cyber-rights.net


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikinews demo launches!

body:
Jimmy-
> Jama Poulsen wrote:
>> Has anyone been thinking about how Wikinews could cooperate with the
>> Independent Media Center (IMC) project (http://www.indymedia.org)?

> I think that the culture clash would be substantial.  Virtually all of
> their text content is completely unusable due to strong POV.

I certainly would like us to cooperate wherever reasonably possible.
Indymedia explicitly does not want to follow a neutral point of view, and
that is good -- otherwise they'd be competing with us and we'd have to
destroy them ;-). They can take Wikinews content and develop it from a
lefty POV, if they want. I for one would be interested in some of their
video and picture material. It's perfectly legitimate for Wikinews to
cover the same protests Indymedia does, for example, but from an NPOV.

I'll be talking to some of the Indymedia folks in the coming weeks WRT
license compatibility. They have already expressed some interest.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Gerrit

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: The return of Prillinger.

body:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
> There's nothing "faith based" about it -- it's good old fashioned
> *rational* hard work, undertaken by people of good will in a spirit of
> love and kindness.

There is some truth in the rest of the article, though.
The example on Alexander Hamilton is indeed striking.
I use Wikipedia for information a lot. But in the back of my head, I
always keep thinking: "it is a wiki, it may not be true, it may not be
NPOV, it may be very incomplete, even if it doesn'n say so". If I would
need information and it would be important that I was sure about it, I
probably wouldn't trust Wikipedia as a single source. I probably would
look first into Wikipedia, and then check the facts with sources like
Encyclop?dia Brittanica or the Dutch Winkler Prins. In the end, the
authority of Wikipedia will always remain below that of estabished,
commercial encyclopedia's. It does not mean Wikipedia isn't very very
great, but it is a unpreventable consequence of the whole Wiki concept.

We will soon have 'validation'. I don't know the details, but it would
be good if a knowledgeable user's validation would weigh more than a
non-knowledgeable user's validation. Somewhat like /.'s karma: if my
edits/articles get good ratings, my karma goes 'up', and the validations
I do on other articles weigh more. Or: if I write a lot of articles in
[[Category:Physics]], validations I do for other articles in this
category weigh more than I do for [[Category:Music]], and vica versa.

There is a problem with the Alexander Hamilton story. The problem cannot
be solved 100% in a wiki. We can lessen the problem with validation and
other techniques, though.

I will always love Wikipedia.

yours truly,
Gerrit Holl.

P.S. It is very cool to see that his complaints are dated by now. Was
the Encyclop?dia Brittanica editor responsible for the edit? I guess
not...

--
Weather in Twenthe, Netherlands 15/11 22:34:
	7.0?C light drizzle; mist mostly cloudy wind 4.0 m/s SW (57 m above NAP)
--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will persist.
    -Dwight David Eisenhower, January 17, 1961


body:
I'd rather not discuss this on the mailing list since I'm not
convinced the exact details of Mark's problematic edits are relevant
to the wider Wikipedia community so I have instead replied at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Node_ue#Re:Wikipedia-l:_Banned_from_editing_except_on_en

Angela.


list: foundation-l

from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: [IMC-Tech] Re: Wikinews demo launches!

body:
With a softer opinion of Indymedia than Jimbo, I would
however say that I support him here. I do not think we
should develop particular strong relationship and
collaboration with Indymedia.

Indymedia is clearly biaised. It does not matter that
many of us appreciate Indymedia, or even that some of
us participate to it.
What is important is that we are different, and we
must stay different, not only in concept but in our
readers view.

We both occupy the same ecological niche in the news
ecosystem, but we do not have the same roles. Both
roles are important and must be preserved separate.
Our role will be to offer neutral news.
Their role is much more to counter balance other
biaised news network, which will keep on existing (and
which MUST keep on existing).
In a diverse world, neutral and biais is important.

However, not only do we want to be neutral, but we
want to be **seen** neutral by our readers. It is even
more important for a wikinews project, where news will
be published in 4 hours.
I deeply believe neutrality is a goal which can only
be approached after hundreds of careful contributions
by many many editors. Neutrality needs time to happen.
In wikinews, articles will be published in less than a
day. Most are likely to be written by a limited number
of editors. This is why, it is even MORE critical for
wikinews, to appear INDEPENDANT and UNBIAISED.

If we want to be seen neutral by our readers, we must
NOT show in any way that we are linked or
collaborating with a biaised news network. It is very
very important.

And I say this not implying that I do not like
Indymedia. This is just a question of principle and of
public perception. We should not make collaboration
with our pet websites, just because many of use
approve them.

Anthere

Sorry if I appear harsh.
As many here may be aware, I did not support the
creation of wikinews as an individual editor. I chose
not to oppose though on the board level because
wikinews was largely supported by the community.
However, I think there are several risks in the
wikinews project, which might hurt our global project.

I see official collaboration between Indymedia and
Wikinews as one of these risks, as it could decrease
the public perception of us as a neutral source of
information.

jeff a ?crit:
> Chuck0 wrote:
>
>>Jama Poulsen wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 07:05:46PM -0800, Jimmy
(Jimbo)
>>
> Wales wrote:
>
>>>>http://demo.wikinews.org/
>>>
>>>Has anyone been thinking about how Wikinews could
cooperate
>>>with the Independent Media Center (IMC) project
>>>(http://www.indymedia.org)?
>>
>>I'm skeptical about this idea. What is the political
>>orientation of Wikinews?
>
>
> My guess is that it would have the "Neutral Point of
View". I've
> been impressed at how well wikipedia has been able
to maintain
> this goal on controversial subjects.
>
>
>>Indymedia exists as an alternative
>>media space for the political left (broadly
defined). Is
>>Wikinews apolitical, left-leaning, or friendly
towards
>>neo-fascists?
>
>
> That's a bit harsh. Can you point to a single
wikipedia article
> that has been friendly to neo-fascists?
>
> Indymedia is "left-leaning" but could certainly be
an
> automated/semi-automated contributor to wikinews
even if there
> are viewpoints on there that are generally not on
Indymedia.
> Wikinews could have both, like news.google. Wikinews
is
> probably more sympathetic to Indymedia than google
as well.
> See the wikipedia entry on Indymedia--it's current &
good:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indymedia
>
> Or take a look at their entry on Anarchism (which
nicely links
> to Chuck's infoshop.org):
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
>
>
>>I've been told that Wikipedia is run by right
>>wing libertarians, so hwo do we know that the
volunteer work
>>put into a joint project won't be exploited by
venture
>>capitalists when they try to turn Wikipedia into an
IPO?
>
>
> wikipedia is a non-profit and the articles are under
the GFDL. I
> doubt it will ever go IPO... For more info, see:
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Overview_FAQ#Who_owns_Wikipedia.3F
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home
>
> If it ever does turn commercial, you can download
the /entire/
> database and set up your own wikipedia and do
whatever you want
> with the articles as long as you comply with the
GFDL. See:
> http://download.wikimedia.org/
>
> I wish Indymedia database dumps were publicly
available!
>
>
>>I'm opposed to this partnership until it can be
determined
>>how Indymedia would benefit from any partnership
with a newly
>>launched project.
>
>
> It could benefit by wider distribution of Indymedia
content.
> Wikipedia has a huge audience, and deservedly so. In
general,
> I'm in favor of collaboration between wikinews &
indymedia.
>
> Chuck, stop dissing one of my favorite Internet
projects. ;)
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Jeff

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Mark Richards

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WP:3RR

body:
Surely you are joking? We guage the truth by the
number of people who believe it?
Mark

--- Mark Pellegrini <mapellegrini at comcast.net> wrote:

> "Sometimes particular articles attract several edit
> warriors, and often it's
> two or three against one. If that one person "uses
> up" his three reverts,
> the others still have several to go before they are
> also banned."
>
> That's the whole idea of the 3 revert rule. If
> multiple people
> are reverting you, and no one is coming to help,
> then you're
> probably in the wrong.
>
> --Mark
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Troll?

body:
You make it sound like 'troll-folk' are identifiable,
and do nothing but 'troll' (whatever that is). In
fact, this word is almost always applied to someone
with whom we have a disagreement. It does not apply to
them in general, usually just the thing we disagree
with. This sort of dehumanizing generalisation is not
helpful.
Mark

--- Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
wrote:

> Ray Saintonge wrote
>
> > Of course bad faith trolling is not to be
> condoned, but the same can't
> > be said of good faith trolling when it succeeds in
> waking people up.
>
> Ray, troll-folk are not slow to make this argument
> for themselves.  I hardly
> think this list needs its complacency undermined, or
> whatever you think
> you're doing with this special pleading.  It is
> wretched stuff.
>
> Charles
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


from_name: Noha Abdel-Motttaleb

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 16, Issue 25

body:
hi,
Jerusalem was a city in Palestine untill, when  Israel
claimed to be a true country, Jerusalem became theirs.
Noha

=====

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 16, Issue 26

body:
HI,
I do not know what 3RR is....
please e-mail me if you have an answer:-)
thank you

Noha

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


from_name: Bjarte Sorensen

body:
I agree fully with Olve Utne's solution. I don't think it matters that no:-links
redirect to nb:-links. They are for the most part pointing to articles that
would stay on nb: anyway, and after a while most no:-interwiki links will be
changed to reflect the move to nb:. When it comes to static links on say Google
or other search engines these will sooner or later be replaced by appropriate
ones from nn: and nb: and the no: links will slowly die away. So in other
words, it will be a temporary "problem", and both wikis will soon enough have
required fully equal status.

Cheers,
Bjarte Sorensen


from_name: uninvited at nerstrand.net

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Socks; 3RR policy change

body:
> Regarding sockpuppets and the 3RR rule.

> I'm sympathetic.  It's a tough problem, though.

I disagree that it is tough, because there are so many sites that deal
with it effectively.  Meatball, for example, publicly logs all IPs, and
you can spot a sock a mile away.  That doesn't mean that we have to do
this --- several UBB forums where I post regularly log IPs privately
but make them available upon request to administrators, so as to
mitigate privacy concerns.  Administrators on these boards routinely
boot sockpuppets.

> However, I think our biggest headache has been the sort of user who is
> *above* using sockpuppets, but *not above* getting into a revert war
> so long as we didn't have enforcement.

I'm unsure.  People find varying editing patterns problematic depending
on their own approach to the project.  You might be right for, say,
"Empire of Atlantium" and similar articles that have been the subject
of ongoing, learned revert wars.  On the other hand, if you were to
edit the Libertarianism articles for a time, you might conclude that
our biggest headache is elsewhere.  The nature and extent of the
difference in the "Wikipedia experience" resulting from individual
editing patterns was something that took me a long time to appreciate,
and I think it is among the underlying reasons why we have trouble
getting consensus on policy.

The reason I am concerned about the 3RR in its present form is that it
would put honest contributors in these battlezone articles like
Libertarianism at an unfair disadvantage.  That's demoralizing, and I
believe it is likely to lead good contributors to focus on less
controversial areas of the project, leaving libertarianism to the POV
warriors.  I oppose the 3RR enforcement change mainly because it hurts
these good contributors, and consider that a poor tradeoff for its
beneficial effects elsewhere.

There are other problems, chief among them being the likelihood of
inadvertent violations, but I am less concerned about that.

> Malicious sockpuppetry is a very very low form of behavior.

I see this mainly with POV warriors who show up with an agenda in mind
and don't care in the least for the project's social norms.  Not
everyone comes to Wikipedia to help with the encyclopedia.

The Uninvited Co., Inc.
(a Delaware corporation)


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Baseldytsch Wikipedia: Who can put it online?

body:
Could you please check http://als.wikipedia.org first? It was started
as a Wikipedia in Elsassisch, but has recently been extended to cover
all Alemannic dialects, to which Baseldytsch also belongs.

Andre Engels

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 15:58:10 +0100 (MET), cdamvvwgs at gmx.ch
<cdamvvwgs at gmx.ch> wrote:
> Hello dear Wikipedians,
> I listed a proposal for a Wikipedia in Baseldytsch (a swiss-german dialect
> in Switzerland with its own dictionary and orthography, about one million
> speakers; see also http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/
> Request_for_new_language). I'm currently translating the interface (http:/
> /meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Locales_for_the_Wikipedia_Software), but is there
> anyone who can put the Baseldytsch Wikipedia online under the domain http:
> //bsd.wikipedia.org/ ??? If yes, please do so! Or send me an e-mail how to
> do so. Thank you very much,
> CdaMVvWgS
>
> --
> Geschenkt: 3 Monate GMX ProMail + 3 Top-Spielfilme auf DVD
> ++ Jetzt kostenlos testen http://www.gmx.net/de/go/mail ++
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Stan Shebs

body:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

>How strange.  To apply "faith based" to anything that I have something
>to do with clearly betrays a lack of understanding.
>
>
>>Then comes the crucial and entirely faith-based step:
>>
>>3.  Some unspecified quasi-Darwinian process will assure that those
>>writings and editings by contributors of greatest expertise will
>>survive; articles will eventually reach a steady state that
>>corresponds to the highest degree of accuracy.
>>
>
>This is a very common misunderstanding of our project, but it is
>inexcusable and irresponsible for a former editor of Britannica to
>make such a claim without even doing (apparently) the most cursory of
>research into how our work is actually conducted.  The process of
>review is neither "unspecified" nor "quasi-Darwinian" but is in fact
>carried out in great public detail on talk and policy pages.
>
>There's nothing "faith based" about it -- it's good old fashioned
>*rational* hard work, undertaken by people of good will in a spirit of
>love and kindness.
>
>
It's sort of telling that he used the word "Darwinian" - for many
years even educated people dismissed Darwin's evidence for
evolution, but when the underlying mechanisms (genetics and DNA)
were uncovered, Darwin was pretty thoroughly vindicated. He
sounds like a Microsoft guy announcing that Linux is a failure
because he found a security hole.

Amusingly, the effect of the "public restroom" analogy depends
on where one lives; in Switzerland at least, the public restrooms
are more sanitary than those in US males' apartments. :-) Also,
the analogy is essentially an admission of defeat; public restrooms
are popular and heavily used - people want more of them, not fewer.

Stan


body:
I believe it was noted on the Requests for New Language page that
Baseldytsch is apparently significantly different from Alemannic, and
it has its own unique orthography and literature.

I'm not sure what I think in this case, but I think ultimately, if
Baseldytsch speakers believe a separate Wikipedia is nessecary, we
should let them have it. (if you go to the Ethnologue, some language
entries note that separate literature might be nessecary for some
dialect of the language because the speakers see it as another
language or for other reasons similar to this case)

Mark

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 08:55:21 +0100, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
> Could you please check http://als.wikipedia.org first? It was started
> as a Wikipedia in Elsassisch, but has recently been extended to cover
> all Alemannic dialects, to which Baseldytsch also belongs.
>
> Andre Engels
>
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 15:58:10 +0100 (MET), cdamvvwgs at gmx.ch
>
>
> <cdamvvwgs at gmx.ch> wrote:
> > Hello dear Wikipedians,
> > I listed a proposal for a Wikipedia in Baseldytsch (a swiss-german dialect
> > in Switzerland with its own dictionary and orthography, about one million
> > speakers; see also http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/
> > Request_for_new_language). I'm currently translating the interface (http:/
> > /meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Locales_for_the_Wikipedia_Software), but is there
> > anyone who can put the Baseldytsch Wikipedia online under the domain http:
> > //bsd.wikipedia.org/ ??? If yes, please do so! Or send me an e-mail how to
> > do so. Thank you very much,
> > CdaMVvWgS
> >
> > --
> > Geschenkt: 3 Monate GMX ProMail + 3 Top-Spielfilme auf DVD
> > ++ Jetzt kostenlos testen http://www.gmx.net/de/go/mail ++
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Robert

subject:
[WikiEN-l] About the reliability of the Wikipedia process and
	content

body:
Sheldon writes:
> A wiki is merely a technology. It is a means to an end,
> not an end in itself. The end goal here is to create a
> free, accurate, comprehensive encyclopedia. The wiki
> aspect of Wikipedia has enabled it to move rapidly in
> what is generally the right direction, but in the
> process of doing so, the wiki notion that "anyone
> can edit any article" has been adjusted already in
> various ways: sysops, soft and hard bans, arbitration,
> and so forth. If need be, the wiki rules could be
> adjusted further. For example, there is no reason in
> theory why ...
> ...the point is that the Wikipedia doesn't have to rely
> on "some unspecified quasi-Darwinian process" ....
> ...We can specify any process we want....

Very well said!

I think that for some time Wikipedia has been effectively
ruled by a clique that has some affinity for anarchy; they
have elevated the Wiki software to the level of an
ideology.  But all of the rules you mention are necessary
developments for Wikipedia to achieve its goal - being a
reliable and respected open-source encyclopedia.

Adding a level of peer-review, or having a subset of our
articles reviewed by people with academic degrees in the
field are also possibilities to add onto the system we
already have.

A note about the accuracy of our articles: Obviously, gross
errors and POV pushing usually get quickly fixed.
Wikipedia's Achilles' heel is the minor error, which can
continue uncorrected for months or years.  If somone wrote
the wrong birth and death dates for various scientists, or
rabbis or singers, or if someone made a mistake in naming
the university they went to,how many people would spot the
error?  With the exception of articles on famous people,
darn few.

The probable existence of thousands of minor uncorrected
errors is one of the major arguments for a new level of
review by people with some sort of academic background in
the field, or by one who can be trusted to do some serious
research.  Such a level of review would not take away from
anyone's ability to contribute; it would only improve the
accuracy of articles we already have.

Robert (RK)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Philipp

subject: [Wikitech-l] Data Transfer from usemod to mediawiki?

body:
Hi,

is there a howto available for comfortably transferring an existing usemod-wiki
(meaning its contents) to a newly installed mediawiki besides copying each
single article manually and adjusting the links? About 1000 articles in question.

Very useful would be some function for influencing "usemod article name" ->
"mediawiki article name", so an old article "NamingConventions" can be chosen to
become "Naming Conventions" in mediawiki as well for the title as for the links
themselves in any article they appear?

Philipp


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikitech-l] Validation

body:
Andre Engels wrote:

>I have looked at the validation option on test, and want to make the
>following remarks:
>
>
Disclaimer: I wrote the validation feature some time ago, and haven't
touched it since. I'm surprised it is still working at all...

>* Can the categories be changed/extended?
>
Yes. There should be no categories at all when the feature is turned on
at a wiki(pedia). Adding categories requires SQL, IIRC, but is otherwise
quite easy. Deleting categories, or changing the "value range", not so much.

>* Putting suitability for 1.0 in a single binary choice is too
>simplistic.
>
My though was to have a machine-readable yes/no decision, so a snapshot
can be taken automatically at any point. The *reasons* for the yes/no
decision can be set with the other categories. But, it was only a
demonstration, and when/if we turn on the validation feature, that whole
schema is likely to go to heck(TM) anyway.

>* Comments given with the validation seem to be discarded; at least I
>cannot find them back
>
>
As said above, I didn't keep it up-to-date, and AFAIK noone else did
either. I'm too busy with other things to invest large amounts of time
in that right now, too :-(

>* Would it not be better to change the validation statistics. Those
>percentages and numbers seem to be more confusing than helping,
>whereas getting the separate validations (instead of just the totals)
>would be interesting. I am thinking of something like (I hope it looks
>a bit ok in everyone's favorite font...)
>
>version blabla   |  validation 1 |  4  |  3  |  4  |  2  |  0 |  1  |
>                         |  validation 2 |  3  |  -  |   2  |  4  |  1 |  1  |
>                          | validation 3 |  4  |  -  |  -   |   -  |  -  |  0  |
>                          | average     | 3.7 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 0.5 | 0.7|
>
>
Of course that can be done, but it would just hide the percentages and
show lots of detail data instead.

>* Nicks of validators are not given; is this on purpose? I can see
>both advantages and disadvantages. Advantage is that one will be less
>inclined to give a better judgement because of personal reasons, or to
>attack the messenger. Disadvantage is that one cannot check whether a
>high or low rating is real or just created by sockpuppets or such.
>
>
Originally, I planned to give access to the "detail view" to sysops only
(privacy vs. sockpuppet fighting, as you said). I can't even remember if
I coded that or not. Probably not.

Magnus

P.S.: I forget a lot these days. What's my name again? ;-)


body:
"Or are you happy to contribute copyright violations as long as they
are 'in the target language'?"

If I were me, I'd ask Angela to apologise if she asked me to apologise.

Mark

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 18:34:52 +0100, Jens Ropers <ropers at ropersonline.com> wrote:
> On 16 Nov 2004, at 06:17, Mark Williamson wrote:
>
> > Does this not tell you something about your incompetence when it comes
> > to individual incidents?
>
> If I was Angela, I'd ask you to apologize.
>
> Does it ever occur to you that you can't bully people into welcoming
> your company?
>
> -- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]]
>      www.ropersonline.com
>
>


subject: [IMC-Tech] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikinews demo launches!

body:
Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:

> If it was really the case that Wikipedia moderators allowed to present
> right-wing opinion about anarchism as a neutral fact and dismissed
> Chuck0's objections, that would be a clear example of excercise of
> power, i.e. something anarchists oppose.

Wikipedia promotes the idea that individual entries are the collective
wisdom and writing of many smart individuals. Wikipedia claims that,
more or less, articles get more accurate with more eyes (and edits). The
problem is that contentious topics are not just the target of mischief,
but are battlegrounds for partisans with differing opinions. Traditional
reference materials addressed this problem with something called
"authority," which is related to the concept of "neutral point of view."
Wikipedia has no effective mechanism to draw a line in disputes on
contentious topics, which is why I find it hard to fully support.

> As for the original question, I share Chuck0's concerns about Wikipedia:
> I also noticed that its NPOV tends to favor mildly right-wing opinion.
> However, I see this problem as something that can be and should be dealt
> with: if anarchists and Indymedia activists can get an equal voice over
> moderation issues (through sufficient transparency and accountability),
> that would be a great improvement over commercial media who misrepresent
> or in best case quietly ignore our efforts. It is not a problem that our
> position is labeled as "opinionated" -- as long as the opposite position
> is also labeled as such.

Frankly, I think Indymedia needs to develop its political principles
before it undertakes big partnerships with other projects. Right now
across the network, there is this problemmatic liberal belief that our
newswires should be total free speech zones. Right wingers are allowed
to attack leftists, activists, and independent media people. This
doesn't just alienate potential participants in Indymedias, but we are
providing our enemies with the rope to hang us. These fucking bastards
control the media, yet we allow them to crap all over the little media
that we've fought hard to establish. Indymedia really needs to get its
own shit together before it undertakes new partnerships.

Shit, we can't even keep our servers online after minor attacks by right
  wing attacks. We've got lots of basic shit to take care of right now.

Chuck


from_name: Sheldon Rampton

body:
Gerrit wrote:

>There is a problem with the Alexander Hamilton story. The problem cannot
>be solved 100% in a wiki. We can lessen the problem with validation and
>other techniques, though.

I think on occasion the Wikipedia community makes the mistake of
elevating the "wiki" aspect of Wikipedia to the level of ideology. A
wiki is merely a technology. It is a means to an end, not an end in
itself. The end goal here is to create a free, accurate,
comprehensive encyclopedia. The wiki aspect of Wikipedia has enabled
it to move rapidly in what is generally the right direction, but in
the process of doing so, the wiki notion that "anyone can edit any
article" has been adjusted already in various ways: sysops, soft and
hard bans, arbitration, and so forth. If need be, the wiki rules
could be adjusted further. For example, there is no reason in theory
why Wikipedia couldn't hire the entire staff of Encyclopedia
Brittanica to oversee fact-checking and quality control. Or, we could
work in a way of "blessing" certain versions of articles (meaning
that the blessed version has been certified by an appropriate expert).

I'm not saying that either of these steps is necessary or appropriate
at this time. The point is that the Wikipedia doesn't have to rely on
"some unspecified quasi-Darwinian process" to assure that its content
meets quality standards. We can specify any process we want,
Darwinian or otherwise.

--Sheldon Rampton


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WP:3RR

body:
I shudder to think of the implications for this if you
are serious.
Mark

--- John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:

> Yes. If there are numerous users on both sides
> reverting, then the page
> should be protected. But if clearly one side has
> many users reverting
> one or two users' edits, either those users are in
> the wrong (and thus
> probably should step up discussion on the talk page)
> or malicious
> vandals have ganged up (in which case, things are
> likely to escalate to
> the level which would require page protection). So
> in the end, there's
> no harm done. Quite often, as counter-intuitive as
> it may seem, might
> does make right (or in this case, lead to an ending
> which will force
> consensus).
>
> John Lee
> ([[User:Johnleemk]])
>
> Mark Richards wrote:
>
> >Surely you are joking? We guage the truth by the
> >number of people who believe it?
> >Mark
> >
> >--- Mark Pellegrini <mapellegrini at comcast.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>"Sometimes particular articles attract several
> edit
> >>warriors, and often it's
> >>two or three against one. If that one person "uses
> >>up" his three reverts,
> >>the others still have several to go before they
> are
> >>also banned."
> >>
> >>That's the whole idea of the 3 revert rule. If
> >>multiple people
> >>are reverting you, and no one is coming to help,
> >>then you're
> >>probably in the wrong.
> >>
> >>--Mark
> >>
> >>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Troll?

body:
--- Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
wrote:

> Mark Richards wrote
>
> > You make it sound like 'troll-folk' are
> identifiable,
> > and do nothing but 'troll' (whatever that is).
>
> You make it sound as if you have never come across
> an actual troll.

Well, in fact, the only time I have felt 'trolled' was
by a Wikipedian apparently in good standing.

>
> >In
> > fact, this word is almost always applied to
> someone
> > with whom we have a disagreement. It does not
> apply to
> > them in general, usually just the thing we
> disagree
> > with.
>
> Like I said, the term is consistently misused.  Like
> I said, I see nothing
> funny or interesting in blurring its actual
> denotation.

I believe that this is entirely subjective. There is
nothing about its 'actual denotation' that is not
blurred.

> >This sort of dehumanizing generalisation is not
> > helpful.
>
> It is remarkably helpful to distinguish between
> rhetorical proponents of
> strongly-held views, and trolls who (as far as I can
> see) actually are
> dependent in a psychological sense on
> confrontational argument.  The
> difference between needing to see that others hold
> sincere opposing views,
> and needing help.
>
> Charles

On the contrary - the claim that the two can be
distinguished is entirely unhelpful. It is simply an
ad hominim attack dressed up.

Mark

>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Socks; 3RR policy change

body:
I think these kind of technical fixes are red
herrings. Dynamic IPs, proxies, people editing from
the same IP because they work for the same company or
go to the same school etc, and the ability to set up
dozens of email addresses very easily cause problems
here. It will simply lead to more witch-hunting.
Mark

--- Anthony DiPierro <mcfly.org at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:48:50 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo)
> Wales
> <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> > Regarding sockpuppets and the 3RR rule.
> >
> > I'm sympathetic.  It's a tough problem, though.
> >
> > However, I think our biggest headache has been the
> sort of user who is
> > *above* using sockpuppets, but *not above* getting
> into a revert war
> > so long as we didn't have enforcement.
>
> In the past, perhaps. but giving sockpuppets this
> extra advantage will
> quickly shift the problem to those users.  I don't
> think shifting the
> problem is what we should be doing, we should
> instead work towards
> resolving the problem.
>
> Part of that involves defining the problem, and one
> thing I do think
> we will gain from the 3RR is a better understanding
> of the underlying
> issues.  Revert wars are a symptom, but once we get
> the symptom out of
> the way maybe we can better get to the root.  This
> is why while I have
> voted no on strictly enforcing the 3RR I don't
> strongly oppose it.
>
> I'd like to add that I don't think we should be
> giving admins access
> to IP logs or forcing users to provide an email
> address.  I think it's
> enough to simply declare that reverts of anonymous
> users, banned
> users, or obvious sockpuppets don't count toward the
> 3RR.  Maybe
> "obvious sockpuppets" isn't declared well enough,
> but saying that any
> user who has made 10 edits over the course of
> 48-hours shouldn't be
> considered a sockpuppet (for the purpose of this
> rule) would be enough
> to avoid most abuse.  The user would have to make
> good edits for two
> days and then suddenly start revert warring, and any
> user who does
> that will quickly get banned.
>
> Alternatively stated, any user would be on probation
> for the first 48
> hours of editing, and would be subject to reversion
> by any other user.
> I'd much rather see this than rely on email
> addresses and IP
> addresses.  Besides the privacy concerns, this is
> relatively easier to
> circumvent anyway (kind of like the 3RR itself).
>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com


body:
I very much hope this does not happen. Setting up
'expert reviews' would be the death of the project.
Mark

--- Robert <rkscience100 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Sheldon writes:
> > A wiki is merely a technology. It is a means to an
> end,
> > not an end in itself. The end goal here is to
> create a
> > free, accurate, comprehensive encyclopedia. The
> wiki
> > aspect of Wikipedia has enabled it to move rapidly
> in
> > what is generally the right direction, but in the
> > process of doing so, the wiki notion that "anyone
> > can edit any article" has been adjusted already in
> > various ways: sysops, soft and hard bans,
> arbitration,
> > and so forth. If need be, the wiki rules could be
> > adjusted further. For example, there is no reason
> in
> > theory why ...
> > ...the point is that the Wikipedia doesn't have to
> rely
> > on "some unspecified quasi-Darwinian process" ....
> > ...We can specify any process we want....
>
>
> Very well said!
>
> I think that for some time Wikipedia has been
> effectively
> ruled by a clique that has some affinity for
> anarchy; they
> have elevated the Wiki software to the level of an
> ideology.  But all of the rules you mention are
> necessary
> developments for Wikipedia to achieve its goal -
> being a
> reliable and respected open-source encyclopedia.
>
> Adding a level of peer-review, or having a subset of
> our
> articles reviewed by people with academic degrees in
> the
> field are also possibilities to add onto the system
> we
> already have.
>
> A note about the accuracy of our articles:
> Obviously, gross
> errors and POV pushing usually get quickly fixed.
> Wikipedia's Achilles' heel is the minor error, which
> can
> continue uncorrected for months or years.  If somone
> wrote
> the wrong birth and death dates for various
> scientists, or
> rabbis or singers, or if someone made a mistake in
> naming
> the university they went to,how many people would
> spot the
> error?  With the exception of articles on famous
> people,
> darn few.
>
> The probable existence of thousands of minor
> uncorrected
> errors is one of the major arguments for a new level
> of
> review by people with some sort of academic
> background in
> the field, or by one who can be trusted to do some
> serious
> research.  Such a level of review would not take
> away from
> anyone's ability to contribute; it would only
> improve the
> accuracy of articles we already have.
>
>
> Robert (RK)
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
> http://my.yahoo.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com


from_name: Brion Vibber

body:
On Nov 16, 2004, at 2:49 AM, Philipp wrote:
> is there a howto available for comfortably transferring an existing
> usemod-wiki
> (meaning its contents) to a newly installed mediawiki besides copying
> each
> single article manually and adjusting the links? About 1000 articles
> in question.

AFAIK there's no documentation, but a UseMod->MediaWiki converter
script is in the maintenance subdirectory of the distribution:
importUseModWiki.php

Set the $wgRootDirectory at the top to the appropriate path to your
UseMod page database, and run the script. It will output a bunch of SQL
statements; save these to a file. Install a fresh MediaWiki, then
import the generated SQL dump into MySQL.

> Very useful would be some function for influencing "usemod article
> name" ->
> "mediawiki article name", so an old article "NamingConventions" can be
> chosen to
> become "Naming Conventions" in mediawiki as well for the title as for
> the links
> themselves in any article they appear?

You could probably hack the script to do that.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20041116/5cf22791/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
The problem is that it is not reasonable to trust academics as any
thoughtful and observant person who attended an institution of higher
learning knows. Most academics have some axe to grind. "Clutching a viper to
one's breast" comes to mind.

Fred

> From: Robert <rkscience100 at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:36:59 -0800 (PST)
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] About the reliability of the Wikipedia process and content
>
> The probable existence of thousands of minor uncorrected
> errors is one of the major arguments for a new level of
> review by people with some sort of academic background in
> the field, or by one who can be trusted to do some serious
> research.  Such a level of review would not take away from
> anyone's ability to contribute; it would only improve the
> accuracy of articles we already have.
>
>
> Robert (RK)


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Socks; 3RR policy change

body:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:48:50 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales
<jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Regarding sockpuppets and the 3RR rule.
>
> I'm sympathetic.  It's a tough problem, though.
>
> However, I think our biggest headache has been the sort of user who is
> *above* using sockpuppets, but *not above* getting into a revert war
> so long as we didn't have enforcement.

In the past, perhaps. but giving sockpuppets this extra advantage will
quickly shift the problem to those users.  I don't think shifting the
problem is what we should be doing, we should instead work towards
resolving the problem.

Part of that involves defining the problem, and one thing I do think
we will gain from the 3RR is a better understanding of the underlying
issues.  Revert wars are a symptom, but once we get the symptom out of
the way maybe we can better get to the root.  This is why while I have
voted no on strictly enforcing the 3RR I don't strongly oppose it.

I'd like to add that I don't think we should be giving admins access
to IP logs or forcing users to provide an email address.  I think it's
enough to simply declare that reverts of anonymous users, banned
users, or obvious sockpuppets don't count toward the 3RR.  Maybe
"obvious sockpuppets" isn't declared well enough, but saying that any
user who has made 10 edits over the course of 48-hours shouldn't be
considered a sockpuppet (for the purpose of this rule) would be enough
to avoid most abuse.  The user would have to make good edits for two
days and then suddenly start revert warring, and any user who does
that will quickly get banned.

Alternatively stated, any user would be on probation for the first 48
hours of editing, and would be subject to reversion by any other user.
I'd much rather see this than rely on email addresses and IP
addresses.  Besides the privacy concerns, this is relatively easier to
circumvent anyway (kind of like the 3RR itself).

Anthony


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [IMC-Tech] Re: Wikinews demo launches!

body:
With a softer opinion of Indymedia than Jimbo, I would however say that
I support him here. I do not think we should develop particular strong
relationship and collaboration with Indymedia.

Indymedia is clearly biaised. It does not matter that many of us
appreciate Indymedia, or even that some of us participate to it.
What is important is that we are different, and we must stay different,
not only in concept but in our readers view.

We both occupy the same ecological niche in the news ecosystem, but we
do not have the same roles. Both roles are important and must be
preserved separate.
Our role will be to offer neutral news.
Their role is much more to counter balance other biaised news network,
which will keep on existing (and which MUST keep on existing).
In a diverse world, neutral and biais is important.

However, not only do we want to be neutral, but we want to be **seen**
neutral by our readers. It is even more important for a wikinews
project, where news will be published in 4 hours.
I deeply believe neutrality is a goal which can only be approached after
hundreds of careful contributions by many many editors. Neutrality needs
time to happen.
In wikinews, articles will be published in less than a day. Most are
likely to be written by a limited number of editors. This is why, it is
even MORE critical for wikinews, to appear INDEPENDANT and UNBIAISED.

If we want to be seen neutral by our readers, we must NOT show in any
way that we are linked or collaborating with a biaised news network. It
is very very important.

And I say this not implying that I do not like Indymedia. This is just a
question of principle and of public perception. We should not make
collaboration with our pet websites, just because many of use approve them.

Anthere

Sorry if I appear harsh.
As many here may be aware, I did not support the creation of wikinews as
an individual editor. I chose not to oppose though on the board level
because wikinews was largely supported by the community. However, I
think there are several risks in the wikinews project, which might hurt
our global project.

I see official collaboration between Indymedia and Wikinews as one of
these risks, as it could decrease the public perception of us as a
neutral source of information.

jeff a ?crit:
> Chuck0 wrote:
>
>>Jama Poulsen wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 07:05:46PM -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo)
>>
> Wales wrote:
>
>>>>http://demo.wikinews.org/
>>>
>>>Has anyone been thinking about how Wikinews could cooperate
>>>with the Independent Media Center (IMC) project
>>>(http://www.indymedia.org)?
>>
>>I'm skeptical about this idea. What is the political
>>orientation of Wikinews?
>
>
> My guess is that it would have the "Neutral Point of View". I've
> been impressed at how well wikipedia has been able to maintain
> this goal on controversial subjects.
>
>
>>Indymedia exists as an alternative
>>media space for the political left (broadly defined). Is
>>Wikinews apolitical, left-leaning, or friendly towards
>>neo-fascists?
>
>
> That's a bit harsh. Can you point to a single wikipedia article
> that has been friendly to neo-fascists?
>
> Indymedia is "left-leaning" but could certainly be an
> automated/semi-automated contributor to wikinews even if there
> are viewpoints on there that are generally not on Indymedia.
> Wikinews could have both, like news.google. Wikinews is
> probably more sympathetic to Indymedia than google as well.
> See the wikipedia entry on Indymedia--it's current & good:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indymedia
>
> Or take a look at their entry on Anarchism (which nicely links
> to Chuck's infoshop.org):
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
>
>
>>I've been told that Wikipedia is run by right
>>wing libertarians, so hwo do we know that the volunteer work
>>put into a joint project won't be exploited by venture
>>capitalists when they try to turn Wikipedia into an IPO?
>
>
> wikipedia is a non-profit and the articles are under the GFDL. I
> doubt it will ever go IPO... For more info, see:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Overview_FAQ#Who_owns_Wikipedia.3F
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home
>
> If it ever does turn commercial, you can download the /entire/
> database and set up your own wikipedia and do whatever you want
> with the articles as long as you comply with the GFDL. See:
> http://download.wikimedia.org/
>
> I wish Indymedia database dumps were publicly available!
>
>
>>I'm opposed to this partnership until it can be determined
>>how Indymedia would benefit from any partnership with a newly
>>launched project.
>
>
> It could benefit by wider distribution of Indymedia content.
> Wikipedia has a huge audience, and deservedly so. In general,
> I'm in favor of collaboration between wikinews & indymedia.
>
> Chuck, stop dissing one of my favorite Internet projects. ;)
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Jeff


from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
--- Mark Richards <marich712000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I very much hope this does not happen. Setting up
> 'expert reviews' would be the death of the project.

But the goal of the project is to create the largest free resource of knowledge
that has ever existed. Wiki is a means to that end. So if some aspects of that
process start to result in a drive toward mediocre content, then we *must* make
some changes to put us back on track.

Adding some type of article review system that could scale to cover a large
part of our content would be a massive improvement. Experts should have seats
on those review boards, but so should non-experts. Neither the views of experts
or non-experts would carry more weight - both would be equal (the consensus
view of the board itself is what would count).

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com


from_name: David Wendt

body:
Philipp wrote:

>Hi,
>
>is there a howto available for comfortably transferring an existing usemod-wiki
>(meaning its contents) to a newly installed mediawiki besides copying each
>single article manually and adjusting the links? About 1000 articles in question.
>
>Very useful would be some function for influencing "usemod article name" ->
>"mediawiki article name", so an old article "NamingConventions" can be chosen to
>become "Naming Conventions" in mediawiki as well for the title as for the links
>themselves in any article they appear?
>
>Philipp
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>
I'm suprised that isnt in the documentation - Wikipedia moved from
UseMod to MediaWiki a few years back itself!


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Britannica FUD

body:
Before making fun of Wikipedia Robert McHenry and other EB FUD writers should
compare our content to theirs.

For example, the 11th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica had *exactly* the same
error as our article had. EB should have had an article on Alexander Hamilton
for about 100 years by the time the 11th edition was published in 1911.

See http://14.1911encyclopedia.org/H/HA/HAMILTON_ALEXA NDER.htm

Wikipedia is less than 4 years old.

More in my Slashdot post (somebody mod me up!):

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=129854&threshold=0&commentsort=3&tid=95&tid=1&mode=thread&cid=10836303

-- mav

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


body:
What makes you think either that the current system is
creating mediocrity, or that the proposed review board
would be better? It seems that what is being proposed
is removing the value added of an open content
encyclopedia, and would be damaging for that reason.
Mark

--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- Mark Richards <marich712000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I very much hope this does not happen. Setting up
> > 'expert reviews' would be the death of the
> project.
>
> But the goal of the project is to create the largest
> free resource of knowledge
> that has ever existed. Wiki is a means to that end.
> So if some aspects of that
> process start to result in a drive toward mediocre
> content, then we *must* make
> some changes to put us back on track.
>
> Adding some type of article review system that could
> scale to cover a large
> part of our content would be a massive improvement.
> Experts should have seats
> on those review boards, but so should non-experts.
> Neither the views of experts
> or non-experts would carry more weight - both would
> be equal (the consensus
> view of the board itself is what would count).
>
> -- mav
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
> http://my.yahoo.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


from_name: Stirling Newberry

body:
On Nov 16, 2004, at 12:29 PM, Chuck0 wrote:

> Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
>
>> If it was really the case that Wikipedia moderators allowed to present
>> right-wing opinion about anarchism as a neutral fact and dismissed
>> Chuck0's objections, that would be a clear example of excercise of
>> power, i.e. something anarchists oppose.
>
> Wikipedia promotes the idea that individual entries are the collective
> wisdom and writing of many smart individuals. Wikipedia claims that,
> more or less, articles get more accurate with more eyes (and edits).
> The problem is that contentious topics are not just the target of
> mischief, but are battlegrounds for partisans with differing opinions.
> Traditional reference materials addressed this problem with something
> called "authority," which is related to the concept of "neutral point
> of view." Wikipedia has no effective mechanism to draw a line in
> disputes on contentious topics, which is why I find it hard to fully
> support.
>

On the contrary, Wikipedia is evolving a number of mechanisms -
imperfect and provisional as they are - to deal with such problems.
Wikipedia represents the "most bearable consensus". Not the best
statement of the state of affairs, but the one which the community at
large can live with. It is rooted in documentation, neutral point of
view, debate and, ideally, judicious use of sysop powers with levels of
appeal and accountability. There is seldom a "final say" on most
issues.

The downside is that maintaining a section becomes a continuous effort,
but this is true of old houses, works of music and almost anything
else: a point of view exists as long as it has people who take the time
for it. The downside of their being no "final say", is that there is
equally seldom a "once and for all".

There are many points of view which rest on documentably false
assertions, or on interpretations of evidence which are not credible.
Part of the value of Wikipedia is that there is a constant annealing
process, by which points of view are defended, reworked and sympathized
with. Anyone working a contentious issue should be able to make a
strong case for opposing points of view, and these will strengthen ones
own ability and understanding.

In a society that is rapidly polarizing into sources of information
which appeal to basic bias, this is a crucial project, and one which is
being noted by more and more people. Having a small minority point of
view can be difficult in an ocean of consensus, which is why it is
often important to be honest: are you documenting? Or doing original
work? If the latter, then perhaps it is time to do that work, and
document only as far as the already established work allows.

If your objective is to be the source for ideas in an point of view,
then Wiki is probably not the right place. But that does not mean you
should not "support" wikipedia.


body:
--- Mark Richards <marich712000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> What makes you think either that the current system is
> creating mediocrity, or that the proposed review board
> would be better? It seems that what is being proposed
> is removing the value added of an open content
> encyclopedia, and would be damaging for that reason.

One thing the current EB FUD was right about is that sometimes good articles
are edited into becoming worse articles.

How would having a review board remove any added value? If anything, their
input and selection is by definition added value. No part of article
development or creation would need to change. There would just be a final check
by a review board before a particular version of an article is labeled as 1.0.
The article would *not* be protected from editing but a static version of the
1.0 version would be available for those people who wanted it (a diff could be
used to see what changes have been made to the live version). All development
would be directed toward the live version.

Discounting what critics have to say and continuing to maintain that everything
is perfectly fine as-is, is just sticking your head in the sand.

A common criticism about Wikipedia is that there is no easy way to find out if
the article you are reading can be trusted at all.

Versioning will help that.

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com


body:
Well, if it's strictly for version 1, then fine, but I
really don't see why a group of 'experts' would make
for a more reliable article, it seems that it would
simply add the standard predjudices that these groups
bring.

The current process of everyone being able to review
seems to be better. For sure, eternal vigilence is
needed.

Mark

--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- Mark Richards <marich712000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > What makes you think either that the current
> system is
> > creating mediocrity, or that the proposed review
> board
> > would be better? It seems that what is being
> proposed
> > is removing the value added of an open content
> > encyclopedia, and would be damaging for that
> reason.
>
> One thing the current EB FUD was right about is that
> sometimes good articles
> are edited into becoming worse articles.
>
> How would having a review board remove any added
> value? If anything, their
> input and selection is by definition added value. No
> part of article
> development or creation would need to change. There
> would just be a final check
> by a review board before a particular version of an
> article is labeled as 1.0.
> The article would *not* be protected from editing
> but a static version of the
> 1.0 version would be available for those people who
> wanted it (a diff could be
> used to see what changes have been made to the live
> version). All development
> would be directed toward the live version.
>
> Discounting what critics have to say and continuing
> to maintain that everything
> is perfectly fine as-is, is just sticking your head
> in the sand.
>
> A common criticism about Wikipedia is that there is
> no easy way to find out if
> the article you are reading can be trusted at all.
>
> Versioning will help that.
>
> -- mav
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
> http://my.yahoo.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


from_name: Olve Utne

body:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 20:17:35 +0200, Andy Rabagliati wrote:
>Amongst some truly great discussion, we should remember pt:, and ask again
>if all the nn: and nb: folks could swallow their differences and skim
>through the other dialect as if it were their own. We have been told that
>they all understand both.

Dear Andy Rablagliati:

Norwegians also understand English, Swedish and Danish. Swedes mostly
understand Norwegian and English, and, to varying degrees, Danish. Danes
mostly understand Norwegian Bokm?l and English, and, to varying degrees,
Swedish. Most Dutch and many Belgians understand English.
Bokm?l and Nynorsk are not dialects, they are written languages -- each
with a solid tradition. Should we then close down all but one of the four
Scandinavian Wikipedias, as well as the Dutch one? And how about the
Afrikaans one? (English, Dutch) Or the Alemannish one? (German, French) Or
the Panjabi one? (Hindi, Urdu)  How about the
Spanish/Asturian/Galego/Portuguese situation? If you know either Spanish or
Portuguese and you know a bit of language history, it is reasonably easy to
read all of them! But that doesn't make it any more or less "justified" for
them to have a feeling of what is their language identity!

As for Alemannish, I have no serious problem reading it with my background
in knowing German, Yiddish and some Dutch. But I will not ask for it to be
closed down, and I do not think would be appropriate in any way for me as
an outsider to tell them to quit their project and work only within the
German or French wikipedias instead!

>Balkanisation has irretrievable consequences. We are in the information
>business, and the information comes first.

Information indeed comes first.

In this case, we are talking about two literary languages, each with a
solid tradition going back about a hundred years as a separate language for
Bokm?l (defined as the time of the first major orthographic reform away
from Danish) and 150 years for Nynorsk (defined by the publishing of Ivar
Aasen's dictionary and grammar of "Det norske Folkesprog". Both Bokm?l and
Nynorsk have their own, extensive literature -- with authors like Olav
Duun, Tarjei Vesaas, Aslaug Moren Vesaas, Arne Garborg, Kjartan Fl?gstad,
Olav H. Hauge and many others in Nynorsk; and Andr? Bjerke, Knut Hamsun,
Johan Falkberget, Johan Bojer, Anne-Cath. Vestly, and many others in
Bokm?l. Both Bokm?l (< Riksm?l < Rigsmaal < Danish) and Nynorsk (< Landsm?l
< Landsmaal < "Det norske Folkesprog") have had separate, clear identities
continually since the mid-1800s.

Both Bokm?l and Nynorsk each have status as official languages in Norway.

The morphology and orthography of Bokm?l and Nynorsk differ to a much
higher degree than is the case of UK vs. US English or the Portuguese of
Portugal vs. Brazil.

It has also been made clear a few times already in this discussion that we
are not talking about splitting up Bokm?l and Nynorsk. *That has already
happened,* after it became clear that the experiment of joining the two
didn't work all that well for practical reasons. It appears that that was a
good move in that it created a new base of recruitment, and the new users
tend to work in both Nynorsk and Bokm?l, making it a win-win situation for
everyone. There is what appears to be a minority opinion (Ulf Lunde) of
splitting the "mostly Bokm?l" and an "entirely Bokm?l" Wikipedia -- a
proposal it appears that most of the debattants on wikipedia-l do not in
fact support. The topic we are discussing is whether the mostly Bokm?l
Wikipedia on no: should move from the countrycode no: for Norway to the
language code nb: for Bokm?l. Also, we are discussing -- and your input
would be appreciated there -- is how to implement a solution where we can
let these two languages, together with Swedish and Danish, have optimal
opportunities for integration and cooperation while also keeping them
separate enough that it is possible to have a good workspace for
fine-tuning of grammar and orthography within each language as well as
having an easier time figuring out what information is lacking in one or
more of these languages.

Looking forward to your input in these topics.

All the best,

Olve

___________________

Olve Utne
http://utne.nvg.org


from_name: Christopher Mahan

body:
--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> A common criticism about Wikipedia is that there is no easy way to
> find out if
> the article you are reading can be trusted at all.

I agree with Mav.

> Versioning will help that.

Am not so sure.

Imagine I am Anonip the Egyptian, and I go to the article "Jerusalem"
and get dropped into Revision 20040807:45. I read it, it's a lovely
article, and I get all warm and fuzzy inside.

Then I decide to add something to it... Alas, we are now on version
20041116:398, the bastardized spawn of Hades, mangled to death by
edit warriors, pov pushers, and a veritable army of sock puppets
(would that be a drawerful?). I recoil in horror and decide to not
edit, since, well, it's frankly quite depressing.

So the average man, in constant fear of the marauding trolls and
hordes of vandals, steers clear of the bleeding sword-edge version
and stays within the clearly marked path of the Official and Right
Version of Safety.

Yet, down this path the common man no longer contributes to the W.
Only the hardcore groups of ultra-perfectionists and extremists will
remain to edit, polarize, and ultimately destroy the W.

Do I have a solution? No.
But I would caution against versioning.

=====
Chris Mahan
818.943.1850 cell
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
chris.mahan at gmail.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikitech-l] 404 handler caching

body:
On Nov 16, 2004, at 4:25 PM, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> I've implemented a system for MediaWiki. 404 handler caching works by
> keeping copies of articles in a directory on the server in HTML format;
> if a page is missing from the directory, an error document (AKA 404
> handler) is called by the server. If the 404 handler is MediaWiki, it
> can render the page to the client and cache that version to the
> directory, so that next time the Apache server will just serve the file
> directly.

Spiffy. There are some obvious problems of course, namely the loss of
all the user options and message notifications... You could probably
use mod_rewrite to shunt users with login/session cookies over to a
non-cached directory, which might still be a win over the old file
cache (which currently requires loading up all the PHP scripts and
touching the database before determining whether it should pass through
the saved file).

Alternatively, loading the HTML from the _start_ of the PHP script
(before loading up the whole MediaWiki class structure) should still be
reasonably fast and would be easier to set up on sites that don't have
much control over the web server setup. This would require appropriate
purging on edit, just as the existing Squid cache and your experimental
code do. You might be able to merge the code to support both this mode
and a 404-handler mode.

Your client-side cache problem on edit should be solved by sending
appropriate cache-control headers to force the client to re-check on
every hit. I'm not sure offhand how to get Apache to do that, but I
suspect it's doable.

The template invalidation list query is really ugly; we really should
remember to stuff things in a template link table for 1.4; it shouldn't
be that hard. Also, think about merging off the Squid code which is
currently special-cased in a bunch of places. There shouldn't be a need
to have two separate 'give me a list of pages to invalidate' functions.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20041116/73a4a039/attachment.pgp>


body:
--- Mark Richards <marich712000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well, if it's strictly for version 1, then fine,

Wonderful. :)

> but I
> really don't see why a group of 'experts' would make
> for a more reliable article, it seems that it would
> simply add the standard predjudices that these groups
> bring.

I never said that. My idea for a review would have seats for both experts and
non-experts who are interested in the subject area. Experts would have the
*exact* same power to veto labeling an article 1.0 as the non-experts on the
board.

> The current process of everyone being able to review
> seems to be better. For sure, eternal vigilence is
> needed.

Yes - and we should leverage that in a way that satisfies valid criticism and
gives us better confidence in our own product.

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com


from_name: Charles Matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Troll?

body:
Mark Richards wrote

> You make it sound like 'troll-folk' are identifiable,
> and do nothing but 'troll' (whatever that is).

You make it sound as if you have never come across an actual troll.

>In
> fact, this word is almost always applied to someone
> with whom we have a disagreement. It does not apply to
> them in general, usually just the thing we disagree
> with.

Like I said, the term is consistently misused.  Like I said, I see nothing
funny or interesting in blurring its actual denotation.

>This sort of dehumanizing generalisation is not
> helpful.

It is remarkably helpful to distinguish between rhetorical proponents of
strongly-held views, and trolls who (as far as I can see) actually are
dependent in a psychological sense on confrontational argument.  The
difference between needing to see that others hold sincere opposing views,
and needing help.

Charles


from_name: Mark Richards

body:
I think an EB would make it considerably worse in many
cases.
Mark

--- Shane King <wikipedia at dontletsstart.com> wrote:

> I'm not saying that they will or wont, I think we
> can't know until it's
> given a try. However, I don't think it's a given
> that a review board will at
> worst maintain the status quo.
>
> Shane.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com