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

Jtkiefer wrote:
> I tried that once, on AFD, didn't go over so well, even though it was
> funny for the 1 miniute before the revert.
Yes, that's where i got tho code for {{abandon hope}} from. :P
- --
Phroziac                    |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xC2AF5417  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/anya2    |   / \

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDQvo7VLzO3sKvVBcRAqWZAJwLRxOGlgQ3YY/dZgaZjb8FA0NooQCgj8Vw
Uv8pjCKy/yRDQ1podEcZzGY=
=jZCX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


list: commons-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Alphax

subject: [Commons-l] Re: failure notice

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

Anthere wrote:
> je pense que ceci r?sout le probl?me...
>
> Ant
>
> --- MAILER-DAEMON at yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>>Hi. This is the qmail-send program at yahoo.com.
>>I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to
>>the following addresses.
>>This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it
>>didn't work out.
>>
>><zivax at club-intrenet.fr>:
>>Sorry, I couldn't find any host named
>>club-intrenet.fr. (#5.1.2)
>>

I guess they'll just have to read the list archive or the newsgroup if
they can't provide a valid address... :)

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

iQEVAwUBQ0J6/7MAAH8MeUlWAQgLgAf+MOasgAkyELcpt4p3D3cAY4WuHjU08iJZ
sBb/9jz9FcQbu8j4J1TBZbWGGDSUszpdLvXPa991nDW33mAbdKBUf6g1oG+5csWI
+M0+0ZDv6zJNzeFUPB92eQ05X56oXjWmsI5idWnY3kQ/pUWg6L5ABSZMzb/b2b+t
ePpQmK6nFRr85/jK97OY834npOx1A/TK/3ytWJTc+jh6Zcwvm8i5nSNSrRl+n0gu
37swVJh8jt/J3/650Ou3hheohrjtnO9CvUU4nD+FZh1JycuJT+s4g7/rE7Px/QMJ
9hn+hi6HmJgLBzLQwFerZVx4QmaZdq7M6vG6VAJ8NTvbmymlxVu68A==
=Fkmq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


list: wikien-l

from_name: Phroziac

subject: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution attempt in the Ashida Kim case

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

Jimmy Wales wrote:
> "Non-notable; delete" is a pretty lame vote. :-)  But so is "notable; keep".
I recently saw "D, totally NN". heh. Atleast it was lame in a funny way. :)

- --
Phroziac                    |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xC2AF5417  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/anya2    |   / \

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDQwHVVLzO3sKvVBcRAqSUAKCQbwRk4Tdb4AttXuqcvB7H6cZTaACeIYIP
0v+2Ck+7sarB8E2r1n9Z4Ss=
=W+/7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject:
[WikiEN-l] I ask you to consider whether this block
	was	notmalicious and frivolous

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

Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> In my opinion, any allegation of "wikistalking" a contributor which
> fails to mention that said contributor is under arbcom parole which
> requests or invite blocks for violating that parole, is in itself
> disruptive. I think HK should be banned for 30 days for wasting
> everyone's time with this frivolous accusation.
No objection here!

- --
Phroziac                    |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xC2AF5417  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/anya2    |   / \

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDQwKEVLzO3sKvVBcRApPTAJ0aMphmTCQneobJxp5tRXLI1RbTFQCfaRYM
bjP6RxvkEwBnWb72T9UoU+g=
=NJkT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Ryan W. (Merovingian)

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Re: Re: Dispute resolution attempt in the Ashida
	Kim case

body:
User:Ashenai alerted me to that fact.

> From: geni <geniice at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Dispute resolution attempt in the
> 	Ashida Kim	case
>
> On 10/4/05, Ryan W. (Merovingian) <bigwiki at earthling.net> wrote:
> > I'm ready to get rid of the whole thing right now.
> >
>
> It has survived AFD. I doubt you would get a different desscission a
> second time around. The article is going no where.
>
> The best paralell is probably [[sollog]].
>
>
> --
> geni

--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ip range block

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

admin wrote:
> 23:32, 3 October 2005, Talrias
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Talrias> blocked 217.43.0.0/16
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:217.43.0.0/16> (expires 23:32, 5
> October 2005) (contribs
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=217.43.0.0/16>)
> (Irish republican vandal (please email User:Talrias
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Talrias>).)
>
> this seems to block a range of ips?
>
>
> Gary
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
Yes, this is an ip range block. I will unblock you so that you can edit
the site though.

- --
Phroziac                    |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xC2AF5417  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/anya2    |   / \

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDQwPCVLzO3sKvVBcRAl8YAJ96RsMMRZktOX5IYkr57XBNwJ3+jgCfU4fd
6I68RVkxO0sE3cTadf4zXj0=
=f3z3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
Had I been aware of the vote while it was still going on, I would have voted to delete it, mostly because I find Kim to be not all that notable.  There are thousands of would-be ninja masters, all with varying degrees of authenticity.  Ashida Kim may is just another face in the crowd.

> From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Dispute resolution attempt in the
> 	Ashida Kim	case
>
> geni wrote:
> > On 10/4/05, Ryan W. (Merovingian) <bigwiki at earthling.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm ready to get rid of the whole thing right now.
> >>
> >
> >
> > It has survived AFD. I doubt you would get a different desscission a
> > second time around. The article is going no where.
> >
> > The best paralell is probably [[sollog]].
>
> The difference is that Sollog was in fact notable, with newspaper
> articles and so on.
>
> In this case, I feel that many of the 'keep' votes were unfortunately
> emotional reactions to Mr. Kim's hostility and general cluelessness.
> One huge problem with the article is that virtually nothing in it is
> actually verifiable by third-party sources.  All we have is back and
> forth flamewars between "bullshido" and Ashida Kim himself.  And, let me
> be blunt here, none of them are going to win a Pulitzer Prize for clear
> communication skills.
>
> I will of course defer to the community in this matter; it is not for me
> to say what the limits of notability and verifiability are, at least not
> directly.  But I do ask that people set aside any emotional desire to
> fight Mr. Kim's insolence by forcing him to accept that we have a right
> to have an article about him.
>
> Yes, we have a right.  But, we don't care.  He and his little soi disant
> ninja friends can go off and play their miniscule mock macho games
> elsewhere.
>
> --Jimbo

----

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." -Jimmy Wales, July 2004

--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 27, Issue 10

body:
> Linking references to spscific parts of an article is important, but I
> would be less concerned about that than about articles that have no
> references at all. Adding references is indeed a pain in the ass, and
> even more so when you did not write the article. Someone who encounters
> an article with no references at all may have no idea where to look for
> information about it. The original contributor presumably had references
> right there when he wrote the article If he didn't, and wrote from
> memory, we have no way of knowing whether he is perpetuating some sort
> of urban myth. Your idea is constructive, and it makes the physical
> process of adding references a little easier, but I don't see the
> problem of references as primarily at that level of the process. The
> writers just need to do their own basic research.

I think it makes the process a lot easier in many ways, though. For
instance, if one is merely adding to a single section, adding a reference
takes two edits, one to the section, and then one to the references section.
And then, if you're going to go through that trouble, you really should
remember the format. Being able to stick a url or an ISBN into a field and
have the reference generated automatically would be a *huge* time saver.

I wonder how much Google Print and the others are going to help this task. I
don't use Google Print that often, but it seems this would greatly improve
the likelihood of finding a reference for all but the most obscure of facts.

Anthony


from_name: Ben E.

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fvw's abuse of admin powers

body:
   - 08:59, October 4, 2005, Fvw <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fvw>blocked
   #41798 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:#41798> (expires 08:59,
   October 5, 2005)
(unblock<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Ipblocklist&action=unblock&ip=%2341798>)
   (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "
   Silverback <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Silverback>". The reason
   given for Silverback's block is:
"WP:3RR<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:3RR>violation on Saddam
   Hussein and al-Qaeda<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda>
   ".)

You attempted to edit, and the autoblocker got you for an additional time
period. I have unblocked you accordingly. Note: if you do not attempt to
edit, the blocks will expire by themselves. This is in no way Fvw's fault,
but actually a feature of the MediaWiki software.

-[[en:User:Bratsche|Ben]]
On 10/4/05, actionforum at comcast.net <actionforum at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> The 24 hour 3RR block expired 7 hours ago and it still hasn't been
> removed. If Fvw isn't going to properly implement these things, he should
> leave it to more reponsible admins.
> -- Silverback
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Bratsche-It means "viola!"


subject: [WikiEN-l] What Readers Say on Inclusion

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

Snowspinner wrote:
>
> On Oct 4, 2005, at 4:32 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>>
>> These are excellent observations.  My son's Social Studies teacher  is
>> an info geek who is familiar with Wikipedia.  I should ask him  if he
>> would be willing to run a survey of his class asking:  "What  belongs
>> in an encyclopedia?" and "What should not be in an  encyclopedia?"
>
>
> I think it would be important to specify "Wikipedia" not "an
> encyclopedia," so as to avoid treating Wikipedia like paper.
>

I don't think we should unduly bias the test group; say "an encyclopedia
with no space limitations". They may /already/ think that Wikipedia is
something /other/ than an Encyclopedia.

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

iQEVAwUBQ0KDfbMAAH8MeUlWAQhGCwf+JCF+lDQ1dciBo30Ew3Z1L3Z8QfjkrYue
/lkuNefyazmS15fbeeHD+H+1q1Xe863bWfnYXU4KyKxESpEVLJwawv4ubIQmANdf
tAuDi/xaurJlZV55w+WAJglzvKCQCzURQwKej5INyjYvGNT5YanRwl+e4GKe1ea6
q92ZCghOls9lmcApAFZFeUME3bfkmTEydAbLTSxjo8pTqCw7oXzYoDDqrBLLNJDb
kP16U05CPrhVfrRa6UjRq92AH8xmL0/bWSgu1LOIsJVL7GswI12y5OIti8dHDPCh
fAm+NhrVstYgbtxKVeOie9//0lt1J8ZcwwmJ/jmRF0d1OkQFVg8zwg==
=+ufH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: 3RR

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

geni wrote:
> On 10/4/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>>But why bother?  The claim that he was gaming the system may be
>>perfectly correct, but you can expect that when you have a context of
>>rigid rules.  Both parties are being stupid and wasting time.
>
>
> When you have blocked someone for breaking the rule by 3 minutes then
> it is hard to justify not blocking someone who reverted 4 minutes
> latter. The rule is not as solid as some people think there has always
> been action against people gameing the rule.

It's definitely a slippery slope. I believe somewhere in the rules
there's a page about gaming the system, even using 3rr as an example.
This is why we have IAR. It reminds us to follow the spirit of the
rules, not the letter. 3RR is all about not reverting excessively. I
remember recently looking at [[Bill Oddie]] to get diffs for the RFC on
Pigsonthewing. If you look at that page, there was a revert war
involving him for almost a month. Exactly three reverts per day. He
eventually slipped and got 3RR.

Of course, there were others in the revert war too. They weren't any
more innocent then he was. Certainly, if you're going to call anything
gaming the system, this is a good example. And then the slippery slope
happens and you start blocking people for 6 reverts in two days after a
while...

3RR is only good for one thing. It gives us a nice low threshold to
"excessive reverting", which quite a few of us would not consider
excessive, in the context of one day. But certainly, everyone knows that
a revert war lasting an entire month is excessive.

Personally, I would have protected the article after the first few days.
Less controversial then blocking the users, and you get the same
results. The edit button is just as useless during an edit war as it is
while a page is protected.

[[WP:3RR]] says "It does not grant users an inalienable right to three
reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique.
Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to
constitute working properly with others." This is all the policy that is
required to prevent it, yet people do not use it to stop edit wars. If
there's one person reverting, block them for it. If there's more,
protect it. And since this is listed on [[WP:3RR]], it is STILL in
violation of the 3RR rule, even if you do not make 4 reverts in one day.

I wish I read that rule this closely before, would have kept me from
needing to use IAR. But in a way, that's an IAR clause anyway.

- --
Phroziac                    |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xC2AF5417  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/anya2    |   / \

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDQwroVLzO3sKvVBcRAt1dAKCTDQWp8gZrH9hl/bl3T3IPzb5GogCghu4/
k1IatqdsyuyaBI6IB1Pp0W8=
=B/YA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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

Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> Other than that, I don't think there's anything we can't handle. I'd like to
> see us add the name, address, telephone number, and social security number
> of every person in the US, for instance.
>

That is a gross invasion of privacy and probably illegal.

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

iQEVAwUBQ0KJ+7MAAH8MeUlWAQjTggf8DD+3wZjePVcLBytqcoFjUZqthlAcPfrf
u0LPPJjRiyV1C0OUqsGTb9IUKkIlAtfSpX5utHz2gIqXPxs6EkIV9XtoOipoqtLi
ON4Aayf9hC38Z77NJoiq8cVjrRWC2SX9IfdwunNzQank7ECfgIsJU5xiiyAmqT0b
JOUK/i8xZqVln0llM/36B3YnqhEzcGXTFaRD/MR12ynCE5UXj7WO46x08D461gAY
hRn9Ee27udEZWKMok85G2JhZXZLd965b22wBvEQiIW5h3ov40Wbqc1iIguNBRWfB
ZaEuoKRyyUhi+KHqIddL2x7NPKgzwzch/GTm/6bO/CboNoGc4Yl0bg==
=344V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Han Dao

subject: [WikiEN-l] Paper is not paper

body:
However, compared to paper, it is cheap. I adimit you have to buy thousands
dollar machines but hard drive spaces are cheap. Since text don't take much
room, you can filled more and more and more. Maintaining it online are
cheaper than printing thousands of book. So in the end, wikipedia have more
space than those print encyclopedia books, who spends millions on millions
on millions of dollars printing, researchings, hiring, etc.

On 10/4/05, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/5/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org> wrote:
> > > So what DOES set the limit to what an encyclopedia can include? It is
> > > not any physical characteristic, whether measured in quarto leaves or
> > > in bytes.
> >
> >
> > You don't think it has anything to do with the cost of publishing?
> >
> > The limit to what an encyclopedia can include is governed basically
> > > by the available labor of editors to integrate, synthesize, verify,
> > > copy-edit, and fact-check.
> >
> >
> > I think you make an excellent point, with regard to the true limit of
> what
> > Wikipedia can include, but I disagree that that carries to what a
> dead-tree
> > encyclopedia can include.
>
> It should not be forgotten that WP costs money too. Everything from
> maintaining the servers to purchasing bandwidth to employing Brian.
> And entirely sourced from generous donations from the public.
>
> Not that I'm advocating anything here, I'm just pointing out that
> while Wiki is not paper there are real physical limits on WP's size
> (albeit vastly greater than a traditional encyclopaedia).
>
> --
> Stephen Bain
> stephen.bain at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: 3RR

body:
On 10/4/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> But why bother?  The claim that he was gaming the system may be
> perfectly correct, but you can expect that when you have a context of
> rigid rules.  Both parties are being stupid and wasting time.

When you have blocked someone for breaking the rule by 3 minutes then
it is hard to justify not blocking someone who reverted 4 minutes
latter. The rule is not as solid as some people think there has always
been action against people gameing the rule.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Afd nominations

body:
On 10/4/05, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
> I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of deletionists
> suddenly sighed happily....

Pleaze hitler was the guy who felt that a street thug (horst wessel)
was worthy of his own song. As a result we have anb article on this
otherwise nn street thug.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Hypothetical print version (was Paper is not paper)

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

Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> Here's a plan. What if we lower the threshold for speedy deletion, but keep
> speedily deleted articles viewable by all logged in users for one week?
Lower? Certainly it's ok now, other then the controversial new copyvio
stuff. And most speedily deleted articles either should not be viewable,
or just wouldn't be very useful. Almost all speedied articles look
something like "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz" (which needs to be removed very
quickly, as we will run out of these letters!), or otherwise are patent
nonsense. And there are attack pages, etc, etc.

Additionally, since we have been talking about wikipedia not being
paper, and paper not being paper, and publishing costs, etc...don't
forget that there could (and SHOULD) eventually be a print version of
wikipedia. If the foundation doesn't do it, someone else probably will.
Of course, to be comprehensive enough in the mainstream topic areas that
would be expected in an encyclopedia, we will also gain a lot of extra
stuff that would not be expected in an encyclopedia.

No way would we fit in the 30 volumes of Britannica for this
hypothetical print release! Anyway, what if we had a feature in the
Wikipedia 1.0 idea, where we could rate how useful the inclusion of an
article in a print version would be. This would allow anyone making a
print version, be it the foundation, or someone else, to trim wikipedia
easier. Certainly you could do it by hand, but eek. that's huge. With
our current database dumps, it would already not be unreasonable to make
a script to automatically remove articles with stub tags in them.
Obviously these would be worthless in a print version.

What do you all think?

- --
Phroziac                    |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xC2AF5417  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/anya2    |   / \

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDQxIvVLzO3sKvVBcRAqx/AKCMjJkIc0CDxsWOcch5FHszPkMC9QCeLd8R
Zpx5H/ckeLhEGNHDg/YumUk=
=8fZj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] Paper is not paper

body:
On 04/10/05, Daniel P. B. Smith <dpbsmith at verizon.net> wrote:

> But there is a practical limit of about thirty volumes for a print
> publication, isn't there? No, there isn't. The existence proof is any
> journal. Journals can and do grow linearly, year after year, into
> long rows of bound volumes which libraries, if not homes, manage to
> find room for on their shelves. I am sure that some homes have more
> than 30 bound-volumes-worth of the National Geographic neatly stacked
> up in attics or basements.

Newspapers (not that many places still keep bound copies) are an even
worse case.

Or bibliographies. The British Museum "Catalogue of Printed Books" to
1900 was 95 volumes; to 1905 was another 13-volume supplement. (Four
million books, if you're wondering). The Library of Congress /Catalog/
was 167 volumes for 1899-1942 (covering two million books; it was far
less because it reproduced the actual catalog cards) - and 1942-7 was
another forty. The Bibliotheque Nationale "Catalogue g?n?ral" ran to
172 volumes as of 1948, and had only got up to 'Sim-' in the alphabet!

"Wikipedia is not paper" is a very good principle for some things -
for stylistic issues, for the wonderful ability to massively
crosslink, for categorisation and backlinks and the ability to scrawl
marginal notes everywhere - but I concur, it's not that meaningful a
guideline for inclusion issues.

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


subject: Fwd: [Commons-l] Re: failure notice

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

Anthere wrote:
> yes, but did you notice that I received the mail with this broken address ?
> I did not make a typo in copying the address to answer him...
> How could he send it then ?
>

It's possible to set the "from:" header to anything you want. If you
view the full headers of the message you can learn all sorts of
interesting things, eg. what program was used to send the email.

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

iQEVAwUBQ0KTs7MAAH8MeUlWAQiZWwf+KA1og4QX98qfFY6w7kQkn8Y9JIFcXIcw
Xm+kaMP8O7gCocE77aT+C98mMc1ynmyNdrXpdT7sgcP/YsU5VDhZgPuRPOMaDdci
VC95HHWetJAnAOJeMFEPlnd13ULabc+FsoLeJRDYjEnEKWxjU5C6oK5ImMxaKEQ1
3znFnb9vtgKjSQMeMuCjqhttcry1GeFCG6Lou+6wBeMftLa3g9K+dQrOr2Y8mhRg
unv6ZMrAJfyIkW6op+zUOo+EYr1ZQCRl1LfU8Ri7PQo3thm3P++QTPOIACO+EcTV
xFV4JmvoU5PweCd9YWb8+ujEGS40uofBeZGMZHoobTHy+SXr6rRRoQ==
=WSai
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] Afd nominations

body:
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Tony Sidaway wrote:

> Is this the first wikien-l thread to get godwinized without outside help?

I can think of numerous lesss entertaining ways that Hitler could be
mentioned in a thread.

And if this thread was Godwinized, then who lost? The Encyclopedists
or the Contributors?

Geoff


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Paper is not paper

body:
On 10/4/05, Daniel P. B. Smith <dpbsmith at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
> If we try to cover more content than the Britannica without putting
> in more work than the Britannica, then our reach is exceeding our grasp.
>

But we are and it isn't. If you think we lack a decent article about the
culture of Thailand, go write about the culture of Thailand. But let's not
hamper the efforts of the umpteen other people who have something to say
about Pokemon.


body:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005, geni wrote:

> On 10/4/05, Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
> > What about them? Are they from these archives? If so, are they
> > permitted under GDFL or PD?
> >
> > Geoff
> >
>
> Well it did occure to me that the archives would be a way of getting PD maps.
>
If you scan them, & contribute them to Wikipedia-EN (although I'd
encourage you to submit them to commons), then they are published, right?

And even if you scan & upload the images to commons or Wikisource the
original documents, you make them available to anyone who wants to
verify your research.

(This does raise the question about how do we determine forgeries, but
we have the same problem with the physical originals.)

Geoff


subject: [WikiEN-l] Afd nominations

body: Is this the first wikien-l thread to get godwinized without outside help?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Afd nominations

body:
On 10/5/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is this the first wikien-l thread to get godwinized without outside help?

Dunno. Was godwin pro-content or pro-encyclopedia?

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Paper is not paper

body:
On 10/5/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org> wrote:
> Here's a plan. What if we lower the threshold for speedy deletion, but keep
> speedily deleted articles viewable by all logged in users for one week?
>

Increases the pressure on admins.
--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Three levels

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

Phroziac wrote:
> Alphax wrote:
>
>>>Often when I come across untagged CSDs I'll tag them and move on,
>>>waiting for an admin to come and delete or list on AfD...
>
> You an't an admin? Why?

Because non-admins can deny being members of the cabal ;)

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

iQEVAwUBQ0KXKbMAAH8MeUlWAQhH4AgAqDrdI0UuI5VcysLzIox6izPDsDFO81XN
f1OWBp1W3XAgFqRMp62ibltQdxfHb9yuaun5eyxnyV01Y381hQZ8UepWyy6dil3K
nKitI1wHKVMrk7Hi0qfRKeLjL/G746wCc7IYub3KxRDFcJz46t2+smTtO+4KcrkA
oE2yGOFQ+27s2Oos1FGl7Wo5ps5L4sh8iCqanZqtVA7ZktRONhgJwl+zZlSNLfZz
Y4MZH4q14dvoxSy5trFyara1n45tGGvNnTePwLhvzguo0F4Oo4I6n1RGWgYxfPL9
pO6P2oyZfL5edQRBF8mRyNtmOFJqJCtiRewjj5kWBmHvYnSeJXaP/g==
=uzwM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Abandon hope banner on subscription page

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

Phroziac wrote:
> Alphax wrote:
>
>>>Can one of the list admins edit the subscription page to put a big
>>>header saying "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here"?
>
>
> Use {{abandon hope}} to do it!

It's a static HTML page with some funny mailman tokens... :(

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

iQEVAwUBQ0KX0bMAAH8MeUlWAQjmqwf7BxTHXBJnCevDPQ5RrLlJ7xeYdF1bxONW
7FVQg31vCCdsfxgKBymoh01w2GFmDaQjP4W25eZzYW0JulyjN1UdX4ej+NB0V+Bd
b9Sd9BIcJLuiakFpklLKa3g9eDyG60uiS2zIppB6mqmU1SBspl4xunrPK8o6GMQb
5Zn6kVXjwwAFT23KmhFOaGMZgFLqmjH0Ah8yrBBgOevDqXbBw0bizMkijJqVy8OT
/QBfuyP9icBTDMuYor53RSqIJUpbbvFU+9WfzqZRFp6ncpPBJ9cFj+k92Sn6IE2t
KAv3/97wrzJVb92MksUg1C2tzmvLio4H2ayUdbvy6BUQcGaQKS+LZg==
=VtNK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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

Phroziac wrote:
> Alphax wrote:
>
>>>Use {{abandon hope}} to do it!
>
>>It's a static HTML page with some funny mailman tokens... :(
>
> I know, but you can still use the general design of it. Additionally, is
> the timestamp on this email correct? I was alerted on IRC that my
> computer clock was a day ahead. Hah.
>

Nope, now it's a day behind...

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

iQEVAwUBQ0KbubMAAH8MeUlWAQjMSQf/UXyv3VIR5whQKMV0yvlyIMHYd0tieifT
cu2DD0PJCoTfF58Blm70Lqfxxbd93VuwLYyWCw0CyQxbD6vBT2GDJ8GBC4KLEUr7
wWtb4zE9gaUO43/noxUxv4DG4YSYj2ondBr2sx0f+PeKrDCbn3U9NlajPOrMqH4C
xCPhfpEEnEGF5yQGAZIHbiQ8Gd+YG0372aNaHPsfeYQirBe5YklJATC/2ekFwf1S
Qhpu5huMTM7UJDN5M+dIukOcXK+Re+o308faZBLh/7Au2kCNFnAlR6ECEuBi56N2
O7m0CIlreYtGMY5RYH/nfF32VAYnyJ6RvrEvdCCsJHAjFmomus/+Ww==
=hQUv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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

David Gerard wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
>
>>Tony Sidaway wrote:
>
>
>>>In the light of the recent escalation of the Ashida Kim case on Wikipedia, I
>>>have registered on Ashida Kim's board and made the following post in the
>>>General forum as a good faith attempt to open a dialog as the first step in
>>>resolving this issue. My username is Tony Sidaway.
>>>http://p206.ezboard.com/bashidakimmessageboards.showUserPublicProfile?gid=tonysidaway at ashidakimmessageboards
>
>
>>Nice one :-) If they're amenable to reasonable discussion, this should
>>be just the thing.
>
>
>
> Looks like he's, er, not:
>
<snip abusive forum post>
>
> Ah well.
>

Hmm, looks like Wikipedia is going to become the New Usenet, where
people will scream blue murder if you don't write about them exactly how
they want you to (if at all)...

Ha. The CoS comparison was a nice touch :)

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

iQEVAwUBQ0KcT7MAAH8MeUlWAQiOTgf8CyvsknLO8jGVS36AS8GkvB8DStSoMr8E
YAR5EbiRlADVztQR6clZale6x2Co5lXFtv3kiNy3LODYRymkTWYCje8KUo+TBx51
GCZnm3nzLp7KnK+ByvfbgyJqwCsTsOSBFdx7RS1ASo6Uv1V2p9gVoztHKoXAQtqM
bOuPUbW4J+beW77JbMMGIj0ZUU2dYnWDss432RJb23JbpCtnwTjeGRSv/YQuzMFH
db4M0Qu5eGYliJKzLMvqDiqIiVMqRLmJDEjBIBBk8VcXmVMly+09XsPDZS1JVc+R
3aPwjepmGJhGN5q17AhrwPhP0bDsdq4w/1hkxX8BQ1lBSxBcbH/Rig==
=HyYV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
On 05/10/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org> wrote:

> Incidently, has someone from Wikimedia talked to the MIT group about
> including Wikipedia on the laptops? They'd be kind of crazy not to - I think
> the two projects fit together perfectly.

Perhaps not. A key cost control in the MIT project is to not include
vast amounts of storage space - see
http://laptop.media.mit.edu/faq.html - which suggests that including a
gig or three of content wouldn't be viable.

(Of course, one of the corrolaries of the "instant mesh network" idea
they're playing with would be to have a single higher-grade machine on
the site which serves as a library; there may be some potential there)

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


from_name: Justin Cormack

body:
On 5 Oct 2005, at 01:11, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
> There will eventually be a print version of a subset of Wikipedia.
> Most
> likely a very small subset of it. As for whether or not there
> should be one,
> I'm actually not so sure of it. Yeah, Jimbo wants to hand them out
> to people
> in third world countries, but maybe it'll be possible, by the time
> the print
> version is ready, to just include the digital version on the $100
> laptops
> being handed out by that MIT project (http://
> laptop.media.mit.edu/). I guess
> you could argue that dead trees are less expensive, but are they
> really that
> much less expensive? How much would it cost just to print a single
> volume
> 1200 page encyclopedia? I'm thinking $50 or so in heavy bulk, but
> maybe I
> have no clue what I'm talking about. Then add in the distribution
> costs, and
> maybe we'd be better off just hitching a ride on a laptop.
>
> Incidently, has someone from Wikimedia talked to the MIT group about
> including Wikipedia on the laptops? They'd be kind of crazy not to
> - I think
> the two projects fit together perfectly.

The small print for the MIT laptop saying 1GB means not 1GB RAM but
1GB storage.
No space for wikipedia. They believe that P2P comms will be enough to
get stuff
and so it wont have a hard drive, and I no DVD either. Remember it is
a media lab project, so has to be slightly impractical in some way.

Justinc


subject: [WikiEN-l] Do 3RR rules favor the contributer or the deletionist?

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

ABCD wrote:
> On 10/4/05, Alphax wrote:
>
>>You mean the cabal isn't like that already?
>>
>>I must be in the wrong cabal...
>
>
> TINC.
>

What! Then who have I been paying membership fees to?

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

iQEVAwUBQ0KpzrMAAH8MeUlWAQhk0wf/X1autB5U5MRgaUSulyBGivvov6bikay6
QbaWnEivX3N+4OLXlHBhSLtF914Oczhs4i2hLBHBIaDuiBHS7uiNAkDQ+qQLO5wR
WgWSFyIVQd/XYYyZjXPuWYEVHkTrWhEPgk4mSdX+i8DvKSJv4pWVReROQvowtqxs
fOpQtCLekMk02G/NF+bGCo9UwhPcD5vbfvnA5jEI6Jocu7Qr6gcoPyxSCzFyA0Xg
mmoTrOm9QH9yiVIiyDGQz4aueVhnc2Gf6048iR/RZSQfCS1YD4pKcqn7Y4Fx4E0h
FUOGfU5QkAlJ5/tHtxVvFFxF2d8E639U3OzzT3URerNCLJVx5ZZDEg==
=9nSj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Becoming more encyclopedia-like: 1: Encephalon's
	comments

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

geni wrote:
> On 10/4/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>So speedy it and ban the user(s)/IP(s) who keep adding it.
>
>
> Can't remeber it would not even have been through AFD once.
>

What about the undelete history?

>
>>(Another one to add to the blocking policy: Users who add Total Bullshit
>>/WILL/ be banned, no questions asked.)
>
>
> Could be a honest mistake.
>

Well, make it clear on the edit page. Or make stronger warning messages.

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

iQEVAwUBQ0KqUrMAAH8MeUlWAQgYdwf/VowSZ3R900x85NWApRhpz1o9vKk94Cep
GbrkV/Kw/u0rcjrY7H6jbzrChA1QW2DY9yPHq1t0FyJ9KcmUt8QogXd/52EJGrvw
ALLIOv2inJSaJAfnUUqHaf9DG40uVwcVTXOSTtbuzmUi29kTRXk3ihSibOh3QfOJ
kciFTv5ksZQfJhtIbouR7lZ6jTFWCLN2aRUBCLVBXr1tq0q4aCyYWH0tkemIywre
g4TGxwUF8MfyIMIQh+v8E4gRdpSM+VznWqy2ZCrA2IZMjR8KEgl6kF0gu2PJ7B3B
jtw3rwjbieTeGnT3YgNW2Sq+djMLbELYQZaupV1pm16UZyDDJn20AA==
=fcLh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Neil Harris

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Hypothetical print version, and using Google to rank
	articles

body:
Phroziac wrote:

> No way would we fit in the 30 volumes of Britannica for this
> hypothetical print release! Anyway, what if we had a feature in the
> Wikipedia 1.0 idea, where we could rate how useful the inclusion of an
> article in a print version would be. This would allow anyone making a
> print version, be it the foundation, or someone else, to trim wikipedia
> easier. Certainly you could do it by hand, but eek. that's huge. With
> our current database dumps, it would already not be unreasonable to make
> a script to automatically remove articles with stub tags in them.
> Obviously these would be worthless in a print version.
>
> What do you all think?
>
Just for comparison, the current edition of the EB has about 44M words
in 32 volumes. As of July 13, the English-language Wikipedia contained
649,000 articles, and a total of roughly 224M words.

Wikipedia currently has over 750,000 articles, so assuming that article
size has not reduced, it probably has around 258M words. This is almost
six times the size of the EB, and would take at least 187 volumes of
EB-equivalent size.

In my opinion, an article ranking system would be an ideal way to start
collecting data for trying to place articles in rank order for inclusion
in a fixed amount of space.

One interesting possibility is, in addition to user rankings, using the
number of times the article's title is mentioned on the web -- the
Google test -- as an extra input to any hypothetical ranking system.

For example, using this very crude test:

"America" -- 1,260,000,000
"Papua New Guinea" -- 68,400,000
"gallbladder" -- 2,670,000
"Basement Jaxx" -- 2,320,000
"Hilbert space" -- 1,770,000
"catecholamine" -- 1,200,000
"Xenu" -- 595,000
"Horatio Nelson" -- 403,000
"Toad the Wet Sprocket" -- 354,000 [!]
"lutefisk" -- 200,000
"Weebl and Bob" -- 169,000
"Wallace and Futuna" -- 531, but "Wallace et Futuna" -- 20,400
"Beaker folk" -- 777, but "Beaker People" -- 16,700

but, on the other hand,

"Bokak Atoll" -- 498, but "Taongi Atoll" -- 1,140
1715 "riot act" -- 943
1714 "riot act" -- 718
<a minor British celebrity of the 1970s> -- 714
"renifleurism" -- 275
"2-Hydroxyglutaricaciduria" -- 66

Now, this ranking procedure is not perfect: the Wallace and Futuna
islands clearly shouldn't be left out of any encyclopedia, and porn
stars will be wildly over-ranked due to search-spamming -- but at least
it gives a start to establishing the fame or notoriety of any given
subject. Given the apparent Zipf distribution, perhaps the logarithm of
the Google page count would be an appropriate measure: "America" would
score 9, "Papua New Guinea" 7.4, "Wallace and/et Futuna" 3.4, and
"2-Hydroxyglutaricaciduria" 1.8, using logs to base 10.

Other measures might be to look only at .gov/.gov.uk, or .edu/.ac.uk
etc. sites, to gain some idea of relative governmental or academic
interest in these subjects, perhaps as a measure of seriousness
(interestingly, Toad the Wet Sprocket still get 14 hits in .gov sites).

Still, it would be an interesting exercise to look up all current
articles and their redirects. Does anyone have a Google API account
charged with approximately 1.2 million searches? At one search a second,
we could have the figures ready in about two weeks.

-- Neil
*
*


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikitech-l] Ranking articles using machine-generated stats

body:
It seems a bit -- forgive me -- daft to use the number of Google hits
for non-English WPs... how could that possibly be relevant?

Mark

On 05/10/05, Neil Harris <usenet at tonal.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
> > Neil Harris wrote:
> >
> >> Phroziac wrote:
> >>
> >>> No way would we fit in the 30 volumes of Britannica for this
> >>> hypothetical print release! Anyway, what if we had a feature in the
> >>> Wikipedia 1.0 idea, where we could rate how useful the inclusion of an
> >>> article in a print version would be. This would allow anyone making a
> >>> print version, be it the foundation, or someone else, to trim wikipedia
> >>> easier. Certainly you could do it by hand, but eek. that's huge. With
> >>> our current database dumps, it would already not be unreasonable to
> >>> make
> >>> a script to automatically remove articles with stub tags in them.
> >>> Obviously these would be worthless in a print version.
> >>
> >>
> >> In my opinion, an article ranking system would be an ideal way to
> >> start collecting data for trying to place articles in rank order for
> >> inclusion in a fixed amount of space.
> >>
> >> One interesting possibility is, in addition to user rankings, using
> >> the number of times the article's title is mentioned on the web --
> >> the Google test -- as an extra input to any hypothetical ranking system.
> >
> >
> > The thing to remember if a ranking system is used is that it is a tool
> > rather than a solution.  It can point to problem articles that need
> > work.  We don't need to be limited to a single algorithm for
> > evaluating an article.  The Google test can be added, but so can
> > others too.
> >
> > Ec
> >
> That's right. The _gold standard_ for article assessment is peer review;
> the next best is based on manual ranking by a sufficiently large and
> well-distributed group of users; the next best is based on
> carefully-chosen algorithms which blend together machine-generated
> statistics and human-generated statistics.
>
> Given that we have 750,000+ articles in the English-language Wikipedia
> alone, it is likely to take some time for reasonable amounts of votes to
> be accumulated for all articles. According to my earlier calculation, if
> we wanted to trim en: Wikipedia into 32 volumes, we would need to keep
> out five out of six articles. (We could keep Wikilinks in, thinly
> underlined with page/volume references in the margin, for those in the
> print version, and say dotted underlines for those which exist online
> but are not in the print version, to let people know there is an online
> article on that topic).
>
> This raises the possibility of using machine-generated statistics to act
> as a proxy for manual review where it is not yet available. Given a
> sufficient number of human-rated articles, and a sufficient number of
> machine-generated statistics for articles, we could use machine learning
> (a.k.a function approximation) algorithms to attempt to predict the
> scores of as-yet-unranked articles. This could then be used as a "force
> multiplier" for human-based ranking, to rank articles which have not yet
> received sufficient human rankings to be statistically significant.
>
> This approach could easily be sanity-checked by taking one random sample
> of articles as a training set, and another disjoint random sample as a
> testing set: the predictive power of a machine-learning algorithm
> trained on the training set could be determined by measuring the quality
> of its predictions of the true user rankings of the training set. As the
> number of articles with statistically significant human rankings
> increase, the algorithm can be re-trained repeatedly; this would also
> help resist attempt to "game" the ranking algorithm.
>
> What statistics could be used as input to this kind of approach? It's
> not hard to think of possible measures:
>
> 0. any available user rankings, by value and number or rankings
> 0a. stub notices
> 0b. "disputed" notices, "cleanup" notices, "merge" notices, now,
> 0c. ...or in the past
> 0d. has it survived an AfD process? by what margin?
> 0e. what fraction of edits are reverts?
> 0f. has it been a featured article?
> 0g. has it ever been a featured article?
> 0h. log10(page view rate via logwood)
> ...and so on...
> 1. log10(total Google hits for exact phrase searches for title and
> redirects)
> 1a. same as above, but limited to .gov or .edu sites
> 1b. same as above, but using matches _within en: Wikipedia itself_
> 1c. same as above, but using _the non-en: Wikipedias_
> 1d. same as above, but using matches _within the 1911 EB_
> 1e. same as above, but using matches _within the Brown corpus_
> 1f. ditto, but within the _NIMA placename databases_
> 1g, h. _Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable_, _Gray's Anatomy_
> 1i, j, k, l... the Bible, the Qu'ran, the Torah, the Rig Veda...
> 1m, n... the collected works of Dickens, Shakespeare...
> ... and so on, for various other corpora...
> 2. log10(number of distinct editors for an article)
> 3. log10(total number of edits for this article, conflating sequential
> edits by same user)
> 4. log10(age of the article)
> 5. size of the article text in words
> 6. size of the article source in bytes
> 7. approx. "reading age/ease" of the article, using...
> 7a. Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level
> 7b. Gunning-Fog Index
> 7c. SMOG Index
> 8. number of inter-language links from/to this article
> 9. inwards wikilinks, including via redirects, perhaps weighted by
> referring article scores (although we should be careful not to infringe
> the Google patents)
> 10. # of outwards wikilinks
> 11. # of categories assigned
> 12. # of redirects created for this article
> 13. Bayesian scoring for individual words, using the "bag of words" model
> 13a. as above, but using assigned categories as tokens
> 13b. as above, but for words in the article title
> 13c. as above, but for words in edit comments
> 13d. as above, but for text in talk pages
> 13e. as above, but for names of templates
> 13f. as above, but for _usernames of contributing authors_, ho ho ho!
> 14. shortest category distance from the "fundamental" category
> 15. shortest wikilink distance from various "seed" pages
> 16. length of article title, in characters (shorter is "more fundamental"?)
> 17. length of article title, in words
> 18. what fraction of the article text contains letters from which other
> scripts?
> 19. does it contain images? how many?
> 19a. what is the images-to-words ratio?
> 20. what is the average paragraph length?
> 21. how many subheadings does it have?
> 22. how many external links does it have in its "external links" section?
> 23. how many inline links does it contain in the main article body?
> 23. how many "see also"s does it have?
> 24. what is the ratio of list items to overall words?
> 25. what is the ratio of proper nouns (crudely measured) to overall words?
>
> ..and so on, and so forth. Some of these are easy to calculate, some are
> hard. Can anyone think of better ones?
>
> Individually, I doubt whether any of these are a really good predictor
> of article quality. However, learning algorithms are surprisingly good
> at pattern recognition from very noisy multi-dimensional data. It's
> quite possible that this approach would work with only a limited number
> of reasonably statistically independent input metrics (ten?); the huge
> list above is only to give an idea of the large number of possible
> choices of article metrics, ranging from the simple to the complex.
>
> The corpus-based measures are particularly interesting; they mean we
> don't need to bug Google for a million search keys.
>
> The machine learning algorithm of choice is probably a support vector
> machine; they're powerful, simple to use, capable of learning highly
> non-linear functions (for example, recognising handwritten Han
> characters from preprocessed bitmaps), and there are numerous
> pre-packaged GPL'd implementations available as tools.
>
> No doubt there will be lots of academics who might be willing to assign
> this as a project or PhD topic to one of their research students. ;-)
>
> Before any of this could be possible, we would in any case need the
> article ranking system to be up and running for some time, which we need
> anyway for the manual approach.
>
> -- Neil
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia as community service

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

Greg Andrews wrote:
<snip>
> Also, another idea of mine was to write an article on doing just this,
> using Wikipedia for school community service.  Does such an article
> exist already?  Would it be suitable for Wikipedia, or might it be
> better placed on Wikibooks or similar?
>

Put it on meta (meta.wikipedia.org)

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

iQEVAwUBQ0KwarMAAH8MeUlWAQj6CAgAmEeid+LC8cqv/7LGviFm/zgf5NJb5nQI
Ue2q3f/mi/JJcW3JY0+Jhv9RJ+3da4APvya80Zb1w1CqU5BDbBxD2ahzLycvY92z
wIei0uvzIsQ9irsLuQJrB5NMplcrhaDb/eFE9UbDe5JT33P8tWoQOMnQlZv0Zgfv
YdtPlGnaKGrgqJLg3GgzaSkrIkaEx8ED5GNzzxBZMxAQnWHTBE39Jj6RQzrbzA37
XyQkiXCdIFgtHjarp3wM25nCjcaVeHqRvMMdHF53N2BIgl0ZFRiGjKcMzydAR4Jc
yd4xl/kwP7qlGYiO+gvXooqEWtImxBSSp64qJtshpKtYQ7uEnTZc9Q==
=5Auq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: actionforum at comcast.net

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fvw's abuse of admin powers

body:
The 24 hour 3RR block expired 7 hours ago and it still hasn't been removed.   If Fvw isn't going to properly implement these things, he should leave it to more reponsible admins.
                       -- Silverback


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: problems with external editor: bookmarklets

references:
<87y85asg0o.fsf@mat.ucm.es> <43417153.6080104@gmx.de>
	<87psqltrhx.fsf@mat.ucm.es>

body:
Uwe-
> URL match=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/ Username=myuserid
> Password=mypasswd
>
> Then I thought this would be enough for any wiki site in english,
> like http://meta.wikipedia.org which is wrong as I understand
> now.

No, but if your user name and password are the same across all
Wikipedias, using

URL match=wikipedia.org

should work for all Wikipedias. If you only intend to edit Wikimedia
wikis and they all have the same username and password, even

URL match=.org

should do the trick. The help page already states this, but please do
edit it if you think it could be made clearer.

Best,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fvw's abuse of admin powers

body:
> You attempted to edit, and the autoblocker got you for an additional time
> period. I have unblocked you accordingly. Note: if you do not attempt to
> edit, the blocks will expire by themselves. This is in no way Fvw's fault,
> but actually a feature of the MediaWiki software.

First of all, people often find out about their block through their first attempt to edit, so this facility of the MediaWiki software should not be used to implement this policy if it can't do so correct.  Secondly, I did not attempt to edit,  I followed a red link to a user page to get to the talk page.  As you know, a red link for reason makes implicit assumptions about intent to edit.  I would agree that this is not Fvw's fault, it this were the first time this had happened, somehow I doubt that.  Knowing better, he could have set a reminder in Outlook or some other software, or perhaps turned the issue over to a more conscientious admin.  Using this type of software to implement a temporary block for a mere 3RR violation, is analogous to using a "justice" system that ignores the right to jury trial and the right to compel testimony under penalty of perjury to implement drug prohibition.  The system is far more abusive than the violation.  Admins should have qualms about using this broken system.
                       -- Silverback

> -[[en:User:Bratsche|Ben]]
> On 10/4/05, actionforum at comcast.net wrote:
> >
> > The 24 hour 3RR block expired 7 hours ago and it still hasn't been
> > removed. If Fvw isn't going to properly implement these things, he should
> > leave it to more reponsible admins.
> > -- Silverback
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Bratsche-It means "viola!"
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fvw's abuse of admin powers

body:
> You attempted to edit, and the autoblocker got you for an additional time
> period. I have unblocked you accordingly. Note: if you do not attempt to
> edit, the blocks will expire by themselves. This is in no way Fvw's fault,
> but actually a feature of the MediaWiki software.

I am still blocked.  Figures.  -- Silverback


from_name: Michael Turley

subject: [WikiEN-l] Paper is not paper

body:
On 10/5/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is one reason I think something like a pure-wiki deletion system is the
> > best way to handle deletion. If deletion is relatively easy to undo, then we
> > don't have to waste so much time making sure we get it right. Even if a
> > deleted article were only kept around for a week, or a month, for review by
> > any interested party, I think we'd waste a lot less time.
>
> Deletion is already easy to undo. It's called "VFU". All people need
> to learn how to properly pursuade people the original discussion was
> faulty or caused out of process deletion or that the situation
> regarding its subject changed.

Unless you're an admin, you don't even really know what's been deleted
without going through the process of petitioning someone else to see
what was there.  It's not easy to even know what's deleted, much less
get it undeleted.  If I wanted to go on a salvage hunt through
articles deleted, I'd have to find an awfully patient admin to handle
my stack of requests.

(Not to imply I like "pure wiki deletion, because I don't.)
--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Paper is not paper

body:
> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
>
> The 12th edition from 1922 also had 32 volumes.

I was afraid someone was going to mention that.

Yes, but the three additional volumes, which bring the Encyclopaedia
up to date with articles on the World War and the latest developments
in Aeronautics (with a nice diagram of an Immelmann turn), and
developments in architecture such as the Woolworth Building in New
York, are captioned "New Volumes" on the spine, have their own
separate index, and are not integrated into the main text at all.
There isn't even a page of cross-reference stickers to glue into the
main volumes (actually I don't know whether Britannica had those;
World Book certainly did, though).

So IMHO these are not really part of the encyclopedia proper. They
are more like a three-volume Britannica Book of the Year.

I also _think_ that the Britannica 3 has considerably thicker volumes
and smaller print than the Eleventh Edition had. Neil Harris says it
has about 44 million words. The Eleventh edition--someone probably
has an actual word count--has 29 volumes of about 1000 pages each,
with about two columns of fifty lines of ten words per line =
30,000,000 words, so the Britannica has grown more than the count of
volumes would suggest.

--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/


from_name: David

subject: [WikiEN-l] How to control a if a section appears or not in TOC

body:
Dear members,

I would like to know if there is possible to control if a given section should not appear in the Table of Contents, generated automatically by Wiki (__TOC__), like in LaTeX, you have \section{} and \section*{}, the second one is not going to be included on the TOC.

Is there any way to control the deep level of the TOC, for example just first level will show:
1
2
3

but you have:
1
1.1
2
3
3.1
3.1.1
3.2

Thanks in advance,

David

---------------------------------
Yahoo! for Good
 Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.


from_name: Ryan Norton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Taking your eyes off the ball

body:
Hi there :),

> Ouch!  Do you mean astronomy is boring, or my writing about astronomy?
>  I
> do try to write articles that are interesting for people who might only
> have a passing interest in astronomy but it's easy for a scientist to
> forget what's interesting to people not in the field.  That's partly
> why I
> sought peer review for Herbig-Haro object, because I was half afraid I
> was
> going to spend lots of time on something no-one would be interested in.
> Astrocruft, if you like.  Please tell me if I'm heading that way!
>
> The general point is that for many featured articles, only one person
> might be interested in writing about a subject, but its appeal should
> be
> broad based if it really represents the best of Wikipedia.  I'm not
> particularly fussed about architects in colonial New Zealand, for
> example,
> but Giano's articles on Benjamin Mountfort etc are interesting enough
> to
> keep me reading right through.
>
> WT

Don't get discouraged! You're articles are some of the best around
here! I think often though with technical subjects like this it can be
tough to write for the layman :). Anyway, I'm still offering responses
on your peer reviews :).

Thanks,
Ryan

[[User:RN]] at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RN
Ryan Norton at wxforum: http://wxforum.org


from_name: DF

subject: [WikiEN-l] How many Arbitrators should we have?

body:
I posted this question at the Village Pump last night,
but it hasn't got much response (perhaps because most
everyone was asleep at the time I wrote it).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#How_many_Arbitrators_should_we_have.3F

The crux of my point is that the number of active
editors in Wikipedia has grown nearly 10 fold since
ArbCom was created 2 years ago, while the number of
Arbitrators has remained constant at 12.

Perhaps this just means we should expand the pool of
Arbitrators and elect 20 or 30 this time around as
some people had proposed (though one might have
trouble finding enough people to run).

As an alternative, I suggested moving to a system more
like Admins / Bureaucrats where we continually approve
trusted members of the community to serve in this role
and allow the pool to grow as needed to keep up with
Wikipedia's growth.  A pool of 50-100 trusted
community members, working in groups of 10-15, could
make short work of the backlog generally seen at
RFArb.

-DF


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ranking articles using machine-generated stats

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Neil Harris wrote:
>
>> Phroziac wrote:
>>
>>> No way would we fit in the 30 volumes of Britannica for this
>>> hypothetical print release! Anyway, what if we had a feature in the
>>> Wikipedia 1.0 idea, where we could rate how useful the inclusion of an
>>> article in a print version would be. This would allow anyone making a
>>> print version, be it the foundation, or someone else, to trim wikipedia
>>> easier. Certainly you could do it by hand, but eek. that's huge. With
>>> our current database dumps, it would already not be unreasonable to
>>> make
>>> a script to automatically remove articles with stub tags in them.
>>> Obviously these would be worthless in a print version.
>>
>>
>> In my opinion, an article ranking system would be an ideal way to
>> start collecting data for trying to place articles in rank order for
>> inclusion in a fixed amount of space.
>>
>> One interesting possibility is, in addition to user rankings, using
>> the number of times the article's title is mentioned on the web --
>> the Google test -- as an extra input to any hypothetical ranking system.
>
>
> The thing to remember if a ranking system is used is that it is a tool
> rather than a solution.  It can point to problem articles that need
> work.  We don't need to be limited to a single algorithm for
> evaluating an article.  The Google test can be added, but so can
> others too.
>
> Ec
>
That's right. The _gold standard_ for article assessment is peer review;
the next best is based on manual ranking by a sufficiently large and
well-distributed group of users; the next best is based on
carefully-chosen algorithms which blend together machine-generated
statistics and human-generated statistics.

Given that we have 750,000+ articles in the English-language Wikipedia
alone, it is likely to take some time for reasonable amounts of votes to
be accumulated for all articles. According to my earlier calculation, if
we wanted to trim en: Wikipedia into 32 volumes, we would need to keep
out five out of six articles. (We could keep Wikilinks in, thinly
underlined with page/volume references in the margin, for those in the
print version, and say dotted underlines for those which exist online
but are not in the print version, to let people know there is an online
article on that topic).

This raises the possibility of using machine-generated statistics to act
as a proxy for manual review where it is not yet available. Given a
sufficient number of human-rated articles, and a sufficient number of
machine-generated statistics for articles, we could use machine learning
(a.k.a function approximation) algorithms to attempt to predict the
scores of as-yet-unranked articles. This could then be used as a "force
multiplier" for human-based ranking, to rank articles which have not yet
received sufficient human rankings to be statistically significant.

This approach could easily be sanity-checked by taking one random sample
of articles as a training set, and another disjoint random sample as a
testing set: the predictive power of a machine-learning algorithm
trained on the training set could be determined by measuring the quality
of its predictions of the true user rankings of the training set. As the
number of articles with statistically significant human rankings
increase, the algorithm can be re-trained repeatedly; this would also
help resist attempt to "game" the ranking algorithm.

What statistics could be used as input to this kind of approach? It's
not hard to think of possible measures:

0. any available user rankings, by value and number or rankings
0a. stub notices
0b. "disputed" notices, "cleanup" notices, "merge" notices, now,
0c. ...or in the past
0d. has it survived an AfD process? by what margin?
0e. what fraction of edits are reverts?
0f. has it been a featured article?
0g. has it ever been a featured article?
0h. log10(page view rate via logwood)
...and so on...
1. log10(total Google hits for exact phrase searches for title and
redirects)
1a. same as above, but limited to .gov or .edu sites
1b. same as above, but using matches _within en: Wikipedia itself_
1c. same as above, but using _the non-en: Wikipedias_
1d. same as above, but using matches _within the 1911 EB_
1e. same as above, but using matches _within the Brown corpus_
1f. ditto, but within the _NIMA placename databases_
1g, h. _Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable_, _Gray's Anatomy_
1i, j, k, l... the Bible, the Qu'ran, the Torah, the Rig Veda...
1m, n... the collected works of Dickens, Shakespeare...
... and so on, for various other corpora...
2. log10(number of distinct editors for an article)
3. log10(total number of edits for this article, conflating sequential
edits by same user)
4. log10(age of the article)
5. size of the article text in words
6. size of the article source in bytes
7. approx. "reading age/ease" of the article, using...
7a. Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level
7b. Gunning-Fog Index
7c. SMOG Index
8. number of inter-language links from/to this article
9. inwards wikilinks, including via redirects, perhaps weighted by
referring article scores (although we should be careful not to infringe
the Google patents)
10. # of outwards wikilinks
11. # of categories assigned
12. # of redirects created for this article
13. Bayesian scoring for individual words, using the "bag of words" model
13a. as above, but using assigned categories as tokens
13b. as above, but for words in the article title
13c. as above, but for words in edit comments
13d. as above, but for text in talk pages
13e. as above, but for names of templates
13f. as above, but for _usernames of contributing authors_, ho ho ho!
14. shortest category distance from the "fundamental" category
15. shortest wikilink distance from various "seed" pages
16. length of article title, in characters (shorter is "more fundamental"?)
17. length of article title, in words
18. what fraction of the article text contains letters from which other
scripts?
19. does it contain images? how many?
19a. what is the images-to-words ratio?
20. what is the average paragraph length?
21. how many subheadings does it have?
22. how many external links does it have in its "external links" section?
23. how many inline links does it contain in the main article body?
23. how many "see also"s does it have?
24. what is the ratio of list items to overall words?
25. what is the ratio of proper nouns (crudely measured) to overall words?

..and so on, and so forth. Some of these are easy to calculate, some are
hard. Can anyone think of better ones?

Individually, I doubt whether any of these are a really good predictor
of article quality. However, learning algorithms are surprisingly good
at pattern recognition from very noisy multi-dimensional data. It's
quite possible that this approach would work with only a limited number
of reasonably statistically independent input metrics (ten?); the huge
list above is only to give an idea of the large number of possible
choices of article metrics, ranging from the simple to the complex.

The corpus-based measures are particularly interesting; they mean we
don't need to bug Google for a million search keys.

The machine learning algorithm of choice is probably a support vector
machine; they're powerful, simple to use, capable of learning highly
non-linear functions (for example, recognising handwritten Han
characters from preprocessed bitmaps), and there are numerous
pre-packaged GPL'd implementations available as tools.

No doubt there will be lots of academics who might be willing to assign
this as a project or PhD topic to one of their research students. ;-)

Before any of this could be possible, we would in any case need the
article ranking system to be up and running for some time, which we need
anyway for the manual approach.

-- Neil


from_name: Johannes Ernst

subject: [Wikitech-l] Single Sign-On

body:
Various people have discussed the desirability of single-sign-on for
Mediawiki installations.
I'm interested in the same thing and have been working on that for a
little bit.

So far: "It's working!" for 1.5rc4 ;-)

My questions:
1) Is there any place where people interested in this subject "hang
out"? (like a wiki page somewhere, ...?)
2) Is this the right mailing list to discuss this?

Thanks,

Johannes.

Johannes Ernst
-------------- next part --------------
  http://netmesh.info/jernst


from_name: David Gerard

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Hypothetical print version,
	and using Google to rank articles

body:
Neil Harris wrote:

>Just for comparison, the current edition of the EB has about 44M words
>in 32 volumes. As of July 13, the English-language Wikipedia contained
>649,000 articles, and a total of roughly 224M words.
>Wikipedia currently has over 750,000 articles, so assuming that article
>size has not reduced, it probably has around 258M words. This is almost
>six times the size of the EB, and would take at least 187 volumes of
>EB-equivalent size.
>In my opinion, an article ranking system would be an ideal way to start
>collecting data for trying to place articles in rank order for inclusion
>in a fixed amount of space.

Indeed!

    http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/En_validation_topics
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Gerard/1.0

>One interesting possibility is, in addition to user rankings, using the
>number of times the article's title is mentioned on the web -- the
>Google test -- as an extra input to any hypothetical ranking system.

Now *that*'s a new and potentially useful idea.

- d.


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Old VFD-type discussions on talk sub-pages

body:
Phil Boswell wrote:

>I have just discovered that a bunch of these have been obliterated as an
>unfortunate side-effect of an entirely right-minded drive to delete orphan
>talk pages.
>
>
Why are orphan talk pages being deleted in the first place? I can't see
any good reason to do that, myself, and plenty of good reasons _not_ to.


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Paper is not paper

body:
> Deletion is already easy to undo. It's called "VFU". All people need
> to learn how to properly pursuade people the original discussion was
> faulty or caused out of process deletion or that the situation
> regarding its subject changed.

It's hard to persuade people that an article should be undeleted when you
can't even view the article that was deleted.

--Mgm

Anthony


body:
Neil Harris wrote:

>
> The corpus-based measures are particularly interesting; they mean we
> don't need to bug Google for a million search keys.

Although if anyone from Google is monitoring this list, and wants to
give me a Google Account with 1.25M search keys, I'd be happy to set off
the appropriate script... or send it to you to run.

-- Neil


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] Ranking articles using
	machine-generated stats


body:
On 10/5/05, Snowspinner <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Oct 5, 2005, at 11:22 AM, DF wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps this just means we should expand the pool
of
> > Arbitrators and elect 20 or 30 this time around as
> > some people had proposed (though one might have
> > trouble finding enough people to run).
> >
>
> The problem wouldn't be finding enough people to
> run. We had 34 people running last time. The
> problem would be that, if we had taken 30
> arbitrators last time, we'd have six arbitrators
> who are under various forms of arbcom parole,
> including one who is currently banned for a year.

I'm sure I meant to say trouble finding enough
Qualified people to run.

Of course if we went to a system more like Requests
for adminship that wouldn't be an issue since the
questionable candidates would never get through.  Of
course we would have to give up the notion that ArbCom
needs to be a fixed size.

On the other hand, since the Wikipedia community has
roughly tripled in size, maybe finding candidates this
December won't be all that hard.  Of course it would
help if we could stop scaring them off by making it
look like such a hard and all-consuming job.

On another point, why do we ever lose Arbitrators?
They resign in frustration or their terms expire, but
neither of those issues indicates a lack of faith from
the community.  A larger and looser structure could
allow people to have sabaticals and still come back to
help with the work later.

-DF


from_name: Phroziac

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ip range block

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

Chris Jenkinson wrote:
> The block did ask you to email me if it hit you.
He might not have set his email address in his account. :)

- --
Phroziac                    |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xC2AF5417  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/anya2    |   / \

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDQ6dqVLzO3sKvVBcRAhNNAJ9R/1j0COB2fnF+m7kz6B89k1lK8ACeJlKF
tGK1pLPithme1a9tlay8eRc=
=GhSH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
Mark Williamson wrote:

>It seems a bit -- forgive me -- daft to use the number of Google hits
>for non-English WPs... how could that possibly be relevant?
>
>Mark
>
>
>
If someone is considered important enough to have their/its proper name
mentioned in, say, the German or French WPs, even in passing, they
probably have some significance that transcends national boundaries.

For example, try

site:wikipedia.org -site:en.wikipedia.org -site:www.wikipedia.org
"Albert Einstein" -- 46,100 hits
site:wikipedia.org -site:en.wikipedia.org -site:www.wikipedia.org "Kofi
Annan" -- 9,240 hits

but

site:wikipedia.org -site:en.wikipedia.org -site:www.wikipedia.org "Monty
Python" -- 608 hits
site:wikipedia.org -site:en.wikipedia.org -site:www.wikipedia.org
"Britney Spears" -- 519 hits
site:wikipedia.org -site:en.wikipedia.org -site:www.wikipedia.org
"Harold Wilson" -- 335 hits
site:wikipedia.org -site:en.wikipedia.org -site:www.wikipedia.org
"Samantha Fox" -- 86 hits

and

site:wikipedia.org -site:en.wikipedia.org -site:www.wikipedia.org
"Robert Kilroy-Silk" -- 12 hits
site:wikipedia.org -site:en.wikipedia.org -site:www.wikipedia.org
"Carrot Top" -- 4 hits

and, of course, it works the other way:

site:wikipedia.org -site:de.wikipedia.org -site:www.wikipedia.org "Bernd
das Brot" -- 9 hits .. hooray!

However, results from WPs with non-Latin scripts might be less useful,
as they are more likely to transliterate names.

-- Neil


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Three levels

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

Alphax wrote:
> Often when I come across untagged CSDs I'll tag them and move on,
> waiting for an admin to come and delete or list on AfD...
You an't an admin? Why?
- --
Phroziac                    |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xC2AF5417  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/anya2    |   / \

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDQ691VLzO3sKvVBcRAl1gAJ9/6Wr4oDx92zw4z19LGH1mSrOlsQCffBcx
P9X6xYUBW+8diXERqPZd5ss=
=YuJW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Amruta Lonkar

subject: [Wikitech-l] How to add a button in the existing text editor

body:
I have written a page in extensions, that will enable a user to add reference
information. However now i want to call this page in such a way that when a
user is writing a new article at that time he can click on either a button
like the ones located above the existing text editor which will call that
page. I am trying to do this on my local wiki. Does anybody know how this can
be done?. Does anybody know what might be any other way to do it

Thanks,
--
Amruta


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

Alphax wrote:
> Can one of the list admins edit the subscription page to put a big
> header saying "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here"?

Use {{abandon hope}} to do it!
________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

- --
Phroziac                    |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xC2AF5417  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/anya2    |   / \

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDQ7BvVLzO3sKvVBcRAmByAKCBLqvnhJBghexKxc43hLcGhGNNWwCfWa/z
yKqQBN3wIdsWYpCxf84M9RY=
=SJgE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: jmerkey

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Unblock my account or mark pages so I can extract the
	content

body:
I have written several articles on wikipedia.  I no longer wish to have
an account due to the fact Mr. Wales promises were hot honored regarding
an article written about me which contains false and misleading content
(Jeffrey Vernon Merkey).  A 23 year old admin, Frank V. Waveren (fvw)
has continued to block my account making claims I am a sockpuppet user
and allowing stalkers to harrass me on this site.  I have setup my own
wiki at en.wikigadugi.org and am moving my editing and authorship to
this site.  I do not wish to have an account on this site any longer.  I
would, however, like to be able to retrieve the source from the articles
I have written.  The new site isn't GNU based, and the content is
copyrighted and will remain so.

I have reviewed the blockage of this admin (fvw) and have noted he
himself has been recently blocked for violating site rules.  I have not
made legal threats, and I have a hard time accepting the judgement of a
23 year old and tolerating this level of harassment and false edits.  I
have also noted this admin abuses his authority on this site repeatedly
and is basically an "enforcer" of the Linux Community.  This admin has
also obtained and posted private logs from kernel.org to this site, and
has succeeded in getting my accounts at kernel.org revoked.

I ask I be unblocked long enough to retrieve materials origianlly
authored by me, at which point I wish my account (gadugi) to be deleted
from this site.

Thanks

Jeff V. Merkey


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Paper is not paper

body:
Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:

> It is frequently said that Wikipedia is not paper. Specifically,
> "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no
> practical limit to number of topics we can cover other than
> verifiability and the other points presented on this page."
>
> But paper is not paper, either. That is, paper encyclopedias are NOT
> physically limited in size. Some encylopedias (Columbia) have one
> volume. Some have more. The first edition of the Encyclopedia
> Britannica had three volumes; the Eleventh Edition had 29. The
> current Britannica 3 has 32 volumes.

If you read Collison's history (in refs for [[encyclopedia]]), you'll
see that size was more often limited by economics than anything else;
it took more capital than most publishers had on hand to pay all the
contributors, typesetters, and printers before the first set was sold.
Subscriptions and incremental releases were among the strategies to
cope with this problem, and a number of publishers were bankrupted by
their encyclopedia projects.

The problem is still with proprietary encyclopedia makers; they already
know their price points (nobody will pay $2700 for a super-duper EB on
CD, for instance), so they have to constrain their annual update to
whatever they can afford, and reuse as much old material as possible;
compare 1911EB entries to present-day, many have only the wording
updated (and the references deleted, tsk tsk).

That's not to say WP shouldn't have limits - after all, the OED
definition of "compendium" specifically mentions "condensation" and
"summary" as definining characteristics, so an encyclopedia that is
a "compendium of knowledge" needs to leave out *something*. On the
other hand, our mission statement specifically says "sum of all human
knowledge", doesn't say anything about leaving the less-notable parts
out. I think a lot of our AfD debate ultimately stems from the
inconsistency between definition and mission statement.

Stan


from_name: Neil Harris

subject: [WikiEN-l] Hypothetical print version (was Paper is not paper)

body:
Justin Cormack wrote:

>
> On 5 Oct 2005, at 01:11, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Incidently, has someone from Wikimedia talked to the MIT group about
>> including Wikipedia on the laptops? They'd be kind of crazy not to  -
>> I think
>> the two projects fit together perfectly.
>
>
> The small print for the MIT laptop saying 1GB means not 1GB RAM but
> 1GB storage.
> No space for wikipedia. They believe that P2P comms will be enough to
> get stuff
> and so it wont have a hard drive, and I no DVD either. Remember it is
> a media lab project, so has to be slightly impractical in some way.
>
> Justinc
>
>
How about seeding a slightly different 100MB subset of WP on each
laptop, with the highest rank 10,000 articles on all of them, and then
(say) one of 20 disjoint pre-selected subsets of other articles? When
the laptops link together in their peer-to-peer wireless network, a
class of 30 children is highly likely to have a few GB of Wikipedia
available to them: user-visited articles could be replicated on the
user's local machine, so they don't lose anything they've read when they
disassociate from the p-p mesh, and as different groups of people meet
and browse, popular articles can be transferred by diffusion to new users.

Come to that, p-p diffusion could work for many other kinds of useful
free-distribution documents outside of Wikipedia, in effect creating a
p-p Web that does not need online Internet access to work, but can feed
itself from it when available.

I wonder if that is a wacky enough idea to appeal to the Media Lab? I
can imagine lots of serious gotchas^W^W interesting research topics
(reputation systems, digitally signed updates to content?) to be found
along the way towards making it workable.

-- Neil


from_name: Snowspinner

body:
On Oct 5, 2005, at 11:22 AM, DF wrote:

>
>
> Perhaps this just means we should expand the pool of
> Arbitrators and elect 20 or 30 this time around as
> some people had proposed (though one might have
> trouble finding enough people to run).
>

The problem wouldn't be finding enough people to run. We had 34
people running last time. The problem would be that, if we had taken
30 arbitrators last time, we'd have six arbitrators who are under
various forms of arbcom parole, including one who is currently banned
for a year.

Best,
Phil Sandifer
sandifer at english.ufl.edu      AIM: Snowspinner

You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a
boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.

 >


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fvw's abuse of admin powers

body:
Are you still using the same IP address?

On 10/5/05, actionforum at comcast.net <actionforum at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > You attempted to edit, and the autoblocker got you for an additional time
> > period. I have unblocked you accordingly. Note: if you do not attempt to
> > edit, the blocks will expire by themselves. This is in no way Fvw's fault,
> > but actually a feature of the MediaWiki software.
>
> I am still blocked.  Figures.  -- Silverback
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Paper is not paper

body:
> This is one reason I think something like a pure-wiki deletion system is the
> best way to handle deletion. If deletion is relatively easy to undo, then we
> don't have to waste so much time making sure we get it right. Even if a
> deleted article were only kept around for a week, or a month, for review by
> any interested party, I think we'd waste a lot less time.

Deletion is already easy to undo. It's called "VFU". All people need
to learn how to properly pursuade people the original discussion was
faulty or caused out of process deletion or that the situation
regarding its subject changed.

--Mgm


from_name: Carbonite

body:
I agree with Tony that it would be difficult to sustain a very large number
of arbitrators. However, if we had an efficient system for replacing
arbitrators, I could see maintaining a "steady state" of 25-35. Replacements
could be appointed by Jimbo, be elected as alternates during the regular
ArbCom elections or we could utilize a system like the one suggested by
Dragons's Flight.
 In my opinion, it would also be beneficial to create panels of 5-7
arbitrators so that the ArbCom could multi-task. Each panel would only
handle a few cases at a time instead of the entire ArbCom having to examine
the evidence of every open case. This might also help reduce the burnout
that's inevitable when every arbitrator must hear every case.
 Carbonite


from_name: Ryan Delaney

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

Carbonite wrote:

> We could state that the top N candidates will be elected to the ArbCom,
>provided they receive at least X% support. The values of N and X would need
>to be discussed and/or simply decided by Jimbo. If fewer than N candidates
>have X% support, the ArbCom is smaller than desired, but would almost
>certainly be larger than its current size.
> Carbonite

Alternatively, we could just let Jimbo go down the list and pick how
many arbitrators he wants. He would have to start at the top and work
his way down, but he gets to decide when to stop. I would be more
happy with that system, because it would be a reasonable balance of
power between him and the commoners (he couldn't just pick his buddies
to sit on arbcom) but it would prevent situations where, say, one year
not a lot of people run for ArbCom so Plautus Satire gets elected by
default.

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

iD8DBQFDRCJR6MKb8lYmCtcRAkfeAJ9DsWX8ZG8n/4cwuZpgLFfkkW5y0ACfRZFo
bo2BtfxJnnudFyh9oGH2T/A=
=tSfm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
>
> Perhaps this just means we should expand the pool of
> Arbitrators and elect 20 or 30 this time around as
> some people had proposed (though one might have
> trouble finding enough people to run).

 I fail to see how having more arbitrators would do anything but cause the
process to be less efficient. The only reason we have more than one
arbitrator is because it's more democratic that way, not because it's more
efficient.


from_name: Evan Martin

body:
On 10/5/05, Neil Harris <usenet at tonal.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> Neil Harris wrote:
> > The corpus-based measures are particularly interesting; they mean we
> > don't need to bug Google for a million search keys.
>
> Although if anyone from Google is monitoring this list, and wants to
> give me a Google Account with 1.25M search keys, I'd be happy to set off
> the appropriate script... or send it to you to run.

In any case, the number of results reported is a very approximate
estimate.  See, for example,
http://blog.outer-court.com/archive/2005-02-08.html#n72

I think it'd be much easier to use a standard measure of usefulness:
look at access logs on wikipedia's end.  If article A gets twice the
number of hits per day as article B, it would seem natural that
someone would be twice as likely to look it up in a paper-based
encyclopedia.  (There are certainly exceptions like hot news stories
or controversial topics during a revert war, but I think it'd take you
a long way...)

I like Neil's list too, but that, as they observed, is a lot more work.

-- Evan, monitoring this list :)


list: wiktionary-l

from_name: Panagiotis vlachakis

subject: [Wiktionary-l] Προώθηση: Welcome to the "Wiktionary-l" mailing list

body:
--- wiktionary-l-request at Wikipedia.org ??????:

> ????: Welcome to the "Wiktionary-l" mailing list
> ???: wiktionary-l-request at Wikipedia.org
> ????: panos33at at yahoo.gr
> ??????????: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 06:42:57 +0000
>
> Welcome to the Wiktionary-l at Wikipedia.org mailing
> list!
>
> To post to this list, send your email to:
>
>   wiktionary-l at Wikipedia.org
>
> General information about the mailing list is at:
>
>
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
>
> If you ever want to unsubscribe or change your
> options (eg, switch to
> or from digest mode, change your password, etc.),
> visit your
> subscription page at:
>
>
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/options/wiktionary-l/panos33at%40yahoo.gr
>
>
> You can also make such adjustments via email by
> sending a message to:
>
>   Wiktionary-l-request at Wikipedia.org
>
> with the word `help' in the subject or body (don't
> include the
> quotes), and you will get back a message with
> instructions.
>
> You must know your password to change your options
> (including changing
> the password, itself) or to unsubscribe.  It is:
>
>   usixra
>
> Normally, Mailman will remind you of your
> Wikipedia.org mailing list
> passwords once every month, although you can disable
> this if you
> prefer.  This reminder will also include
> instructions on how to
> unsubscribe or change your account options.  There
> is also a button on
> your options page that will email your current
> password to you.
>

___________________________________________________________
?????????????? Yahoo!;
?????????? ?? ?????????? ???????? (spam); ?? Yahoo! Mail
???????? ??? ???????? ?????? ????????? ???? ??? ???????????
????????? http://login.yahoo.com/config/mail?.intl=gr


from_name: Kelly Martin

body:
On 10/5/05, Carbonite <carbonite.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
>  In my opinion, it would also be beneficial to create panels of 5-7
> arbitrators so that the ArbCom could multi-task. Each panel would only
> handle a few cases at a time instead of the entire ArbCom having to examine
> the evidence of every open case. This might also help reduce the burnout
> that's inevitable when every arbitrator must hear every case.
>  Carbonite

I would prefer to keep the ArbCom at its current size (or close to it)
and establish lower courts to filter off the relatively easy stuff and
to organize the cases into a form so that when they do appeal the
ArbCom doesn't have to waste as much time marshalling the case.

A few Arbitration Assistants would not be remiss, either.

Kelly


from_name: steve v

body:
Would this "lower court filter" resemble a
Wikipedia:NPOV committee?

SV

--- Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/5/05, Carbonite <carbonite.wp at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >  In my opinion, it would also be beneficial to
> create panels of 5-7
> > arbitrators so that the ArbCom could multi-task.
> Each panel would only
> > handle a few cases at a time instead of the entire
> ArbCom having to examine
> > the evidence of every open case. This might also
> help reduce the burnout
> > that's inevitable when every arbitrator must hear
> every case.
> >  Carbonite
>
> I would prefer to keep the ArbCom at its current
> size (or close to it)
> and establish lower courts to filter off the
> relatively easy stuff and
> to organize the cases into a form so that when they
> do appeal the
> ArbCom doesn't have to waste as much time
> marshalling the case.
>
> A few Arbitration Assistants would not be remiss,
> either.
>
> Kelly
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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


body:
>
>  On 10/5/05, Snowspinner <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> The problem wouldn't be finding enough people to run. We had 34
> people running last time. The problem would be that, if we had taken
> 30 arbitrators last time, we'd have six arbitrators who are under
> various forms of arbcom parole, including one who is currently banned
> for a year.

 That's a good point, we don't want to increase the ArbCom to the point
where we'd have to take anyone that applies. Perhaps we could set a cutoff
so only candidates who received at least X% approval are eligible for
serving on the ArbCom. For example, in the December 2004 election, Theresa
Knott had the highest, at 51%. The other candidates elected to the ArbCom in
December 2004 were:
 Raul654 - 42%
Ambi - 39%
Sannse - 36%
Neutrality - 33%
David Gerard - 32%
Grunt - 31%
 If we set a cutoff of 20%, also elected in December 2004 would have been:
 Fennec -31%
Mirv - 31%
Cecropia - 31%
James F. - 30%
Ed Poor - 28%
Hephaestos - 27%
Charles Matthews - 25%
172 - 24%
The Cunctator - 24%
 Overall, that's still a pretty strong group of candidates. It's only when
you start dipping below 20% and especially below 10% that some candidates
would face opposition (I'm not going to name any names).
 We could state that the top N candidates will be elected to the ArbCom,
provided they receive at least X% support. The values of N and X would need
to be discussed and/or simply decided by Jimbo. If fewer than N candidates
have X% support, the ArbCom is smaller than desired, but would almost
certainly be larger than its current size.
 Carbonite


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [WikiEN-l] Paper is not paper

body:
On 10/5/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org> wrote:
> > So what DOES set the limit to what an encyclopedia can include? It is
> > not any physical characteristic, whether measured in quarto leaves or
> > in bytes.
>
>
> You don't think it has anything to do with the cost of publishing?
>
> The limit to what an encyclopedia can include is governed basically
> > by the available labor of editors to integrate, synthesize, verify,
> > copy-edit, and fact-check.
>
>
> I think you make an excellent point, with regard to the true limit of what
> Wikipedia can include, but I disagree that that carries to what a dead-tree
> encyclopedia can include.

It should not be forgotten that WP costs money too. Everything from
maintaining the servers to purchasing bandwidth to employing Brian.
And entirely sourced from generous donations from the public.

Not that I'm advocating anything here, I'm just pointing out that
while Wiki is not paper there are real physical limits on WP's size
(albeit vastly greater than a traditional encyclopaedia).

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fvw's abuse of admin powers

body:
If the autoblocker actually adds additional time to a
block just because someone attempts to edit a page
before the block is up, then that is a completely
bullshit configuration for the block script.

Keep in mind what has been happening with blocks as
they are used for 3RR, etc: Blocks, originally used
only against vandals, are now being used regularly
against non vandals (and even sysops) to enforce a
rudimentary interpretation of circumstances. The only
reason that I ever supported (and promoted) 3RR
originally, back when Erik's proposal failed even a
Quickpoll, was that it would be enforced equitably --
there are generally two parties and both are often
guilty.

3RR was intended to be a protective measure against
destructive revert wars, and instead has been turned
into a kind punitive measure which often is only
unilaterally applied. Some people have gotten into the
habit of simply gaming the system, by getting a buddy
to assist in tag-teaming someone else --producing an
apparent greater culpability on the part of the one
individual over the other group.

At this point, there is no fine tuning which provides
any degree of formal review, and as such the use of
blocks against contributors (vs. vandals) has taken on
an increasing air of *incivility, in direct
contradiction to WP:AGF, and WP:IAR in direct
contradiction to WP:DBAD.

SV

--- "Ben E." <bratsche1 at gmail.com> wrote:

>    - 08:59, October 4, 2005, Fvw
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fvw>blocked
>    #41798 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:#41798>
> (expires 08:59,
>    October 5, 2005)
>
(unblock<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Ipblocklist&action=unblock&ip=%2341798>)
>    (Autoblocked because your IP address has been
> recently used by "
>    Silverback
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Silverback>". The
> reason
>    given for Silverback's block is:
>
"WP:3RR<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:3RR>violation
> on Saddam
>    Hussein and
>
al-Qaeda<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda>
>    ".)
>
>
> You attempted to edit, and the autoblocker got you
> for an additional time
> period. I have unblocked you accordingly. Note: if
> you do not attempt to
> edit, the blocks will expire by themselves. This is
> in no way Fvw's fault,
> but actually a feature of the MediaWiki software.
>
> -[[en:User:Bratsche|Ben]]
> On 10/4/05, actionforum at comcast.net
> <actionforum at comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > The 24 hour 3RR block expired 7 hours ago and it
> still hasn't been
> > removed. If Fvw isn't going to properly implement
> these things, he should
> > leave it to more reponsible admins.
> > -- Silverback
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Bratsche-It means "viola!"
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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


from_name: Johannes Ernst

subject: [Wikitech-l] Single Sign-On

body:
>> 2) Is this the right mailing list to discuss this?
>>

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mailing_lists,
this list is 'for any WikiMedia development issues, technical
discussions, ..." which is what I'd like to discuss.

MediaWiki-l seems to be "for people with questions about their own
installation of MediaWiki" which isn't really what I have in mind.

Johannes Ernst

-------------- next part --------------
  http://netmesh.info/jernst


body:
Why? Arbcom largely decides how to handle personality
disputes, and in the process must deal somewhat with
applications of principle -neutrality being first
among them.

It seems to be popular belief that the Arbcom is
understaffed relative to Wikipedia size, anyway. As a
consequence, it seems to only thinly treat its duty to
be treat each specific point/issue/claim, and in turn
this means that its rulings offer only a decree, and
show little about the thinking process. Of course,
things are open to discussion, but IAC, NPOV is clear
enough for a committee to deal with regard to its
application to certain points, and is separate from
personality issues.

Growth often means diversification.

SV

--- Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/5/05, steve v <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Would this "lower court filter" resemble a
> > Wikipedia:NPOV committee?
> >
> > SV
>
> At this time, I'm opposed to either ArbCom or any
> body subordinate to
> it being involved deciding content disputes.
>
> Kelly
>

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