from_name: jlk7e at juno.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Viking

body:
Just from reading the discussion here on the mailing list (without having looked too closely at the situation), I note a couple of things. 1) "Viking" deletes pages with sexual content; 2) "Viking" claims to be a sysop, under another account; 3) A sysop, "Kils" deletes Viking's page without consultation, offers a rather bizarre explanation for it, and seems to agree with Viking about sexual content.  4) Kils then deletes his talk page.  Hmm....interesting...

And on the presumption of innocence, this is silly.  What pertains in a criminal trial does not pertain in judgments of people on wikipedia.  That phrase seems to be interpreted far too broadly in popular culture.  And what's the standard of proof here?  I would imagine that the lesser civil standard of "preponderance of the evidence" would apply here, rather than the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt".  I think the preponderance of evidence would suggest that either a) Viking was lying about being a sysop; or b) Viking was telling the truth, in which case what ever account of his is a sysop account ought not to be.

John
(jlk7e)


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: kosebamse at gmx.net

subject: [WikiEN-l] Submitting again, sorry for the  inconvenience - Sysop Request User:Kosebamse

body:
Dear wikipedians,

Now that I?ve been around for a while, I?d like to humbly submit my request
for sysop status.

Best regards, Kosebamse

--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more  http://www.gmx.net +++
Bitte l?cheln! Fotogalerie online mit GMX ohne eigene Homepage!


from_name: Axel Boldt

subject: [WikiEN-l] User:Harry Potter

body:
--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> It would seem hard to define NPOV in an absurdist context where
> empirical sense does not have a significant role to start with.  It
> may be sufficient to offer a warning to those readers inclined to
take
> the subject seriously that what follows is parody,

I haven't checked the material, but if it really is parody, as opposed
to a *report* on parody, then it should be removed. Parody does not
belong in an encyclopedia, just like love poems, dreams, jokes etc. And
with regards to reports on parody, NPOV is unproblematic.

Axel

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikipedia-l] An Excellent Short Article was Limits to the non-paperiness of Wikipedia?

body:
Fred-
> My example would be [[Baltzar von Platen]], an excellent example of a short
> article that stands alone with useful and interesting links.

This is not an article. It's a disambiguation page that is not in the
proper form.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Limits to the non-paperiness of Wikipedia?

body:
Oliver-
>> So far I have not seen any solid arguments for the practice of having
>> many small, interlinked articles, other than "it's the web". This is why
>> I am referring to that practice as "just for kicks". That's not a straw
>> man, but it can be refuted by showing such arguments.

> Yes, you have seen such arguments.

I have seen solid arguments for splitting *some* articles up, because of
the linkability issue. Articles should only be split up to the point where
linking to individual sections is necessary and this cannot be
accomplished through redirects. They can also be split up where a section
is likely to be relevant in many different contexts, in which case it
probably also fulfills my "can be expanded" criterion. And I agree that
long discussions that distract from the substance of the article should be
moved elsewhere, but again, these will probably fufill my length
criterion.

I do not agree with Fred Bauder, on the other hand, who feels that there
should be *many* small articles. The above arguments are applicable to
exceptions, and even in these cases, we are splitting articles into
smaller ones which can, hopefully in most cases, realistically be
expanded.

> You have brought up these obscure fictional characters quite a few times
> in this discussion now. This is a straw man argument if ever I saw one.
> No-one on the mailing list has ever stated that they want an article on
> [[Gnipper]] and his friends, as far as I can recall.

Well, at this point I can't really read minds yet, so I don't know if the
people who supported having short articles would or would not want
articles about fictional characters. But I'm happy to know that you don't
like the little bastard either.

> My new test case is [[Cyrus Cantrell]], an example less likely to provoke
> distracting emotional responses than the previous one - ignoring the
> genealogical connection. Dr. Cantrell is a not especially well-known
> academic in the field of engineering, who has done research in
> [[photonics]]. Assuming that no-one ever expands his article up to 20,000
> characters (which seems likely)

No, of course that article should not be merged into another one. I
believe I used the words "If an article can realistically be expanded ..".
I think this article can quite realistically be expanded to 20-30K, even
if nobody will ever do it. It mentions that Cyrus Cantrell wrote over 100
papers, for example. What are they, which ones are relevant? Why did he
get into photonics? Etc. etc.

For my favorite example Gnipper, on the other hand, it seems unlikely that
we really want the kind of information that *could* blow this article up
to massive proportions, since most of it would probably come from Internet
fandom and as such have the stigma of low verifiability. So the article
about Gnipper could still "conceivably" get very long, but in my opinion
not "realistically". This is an important distinction.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Tony Wilson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Requesting sysop access - CGS

body:
CGS is one of the good guys. Seconded.

He will be an asset to the team.

Tony

(Tannin)

(By the way, what happened to the nomination for JTDirl? That one seems
to have fallen through the cracks. It's been ages.)


list: wikitech-l

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Fair use

body:
--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:

> > First, use the extensive public domain archives
>
> Pictures are public domain if they
> 1) have been created before 1923
> 2) are produced by the US government.

...or have been placed in the public domain by the copyright owner.
Check out for example the excellent collection of portrait photographs
donated to the Library of Congress.

> > Next, once our foundation has
> > money, we can try to acquire the copyright of selected important
> > images we need and cannot get in any other way.
>
> The problem with that approach is that we need an exclusive
> world-wide license, since we need to allow unlimited redistribution
> and modification.

*non-exclusive*

> This is *very* expensive for most professional photographs, and
> impossible for many.

So instead you suggest to simply take them for free, hoping that fair
use applies?

I think Brion's suggestion of simply linking to the external site
containing the photograph is a win-win-win-win proposal:

* The copyright owner gets exposure
* Our readers get access to the educational content
* We are still able to burn a CD with all our material and put "GFDL"
on the cover
* The inconvenience of the external link encourages contributors to
hunt for free substitute photographs.

Axel

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] naming convention for birds

body:
daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:

> Where was the discussion for the naming convention for animals. A new
> user is reverting the Canada goose, and I really don't want to get
> into that whole fight again.
>
> Danny

It was never resolved.
According to the The Globe and Mail Style Book: "The generic English
names of animals and plants, and common adjectives attached to them, are
lower-case".  Certainly the provisions of a Canadian style book should
apply to a Canadian species.

Also the Style Manual for Biological Journals as "Prepared by the
Committee on Form and Style of the Conference of Biological Editors of
the American Institute of Biological Sciences" states at page 68,
"Generic names used as vernacular names are neither italicized nor
capitalized"

In all fairness one on-line site (also Canadian)
http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/courses.hp/biol335/Lecture8-9.html does
note "that the common names of birds are now usually capitalized".
 "Usually" is important here; it is not in the form of a rule, but
appears to reflect a custom.

This exception applies only to birds.  The material is at best
contradictory

Eclecticology


from_name: Zoe

subject: [WikiEN-l] Kils sysop status temporarily revoked

body:
--- Dante Alighieri <dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com>
wrote:
> I don't think it's strictly true to say that he
> deleted his own talk page.
> I will take them at their word that there are a
> group of people that we are
> discussing here, and that the people at User:Viking
> were members of the
> same group as Kils, but are not one and the same
> person.

But only a sysop can delete a page, which means that
it had to be Kils who did it, not Viking.

Zoe

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com


body:
I have temporarily revoked Kils' sysop status on en:, someone with
developer status on de: may want to do the same. Explanation:

In the last few days, a user named "Viking" has vandalized/downsized a
couple of articles he considered "indecent" (especially the [[fisting]]
article), threatened people not to question what he is doing if they
didn't have "administrator status" and then left (there was a brief
discussion of a possible ban). Kils subsequently deleted Viking's user and
talk pages and explained it was an "experiment of his children".

I asked him for details, he responded and then *deleted his talk page*
before I could read his response. I restored the talk page and there was
the following response.

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

 Eloquence: I confirm this - I do not think any had the quality of
vandlism, otherwise I would have stepped in. We were concerned that a
"handbook type" with direct instructions to certain practises on certain
pages was endangering the reputation of wikipeia and of us as visible
contributers and cooperators. A first thing many teachers and professors
for example do, before they endorse or use a web based project in class or
with students/parents, is to search for ugly content within. And there was
some, and as we were supported by responses of colleagues with the right
background it was beyond the rules of wikipedia - young vikings are often
of very spontaneous mannors, I advised them to do things different, but
then we are also very democratic. they plan to do it different now - we
could have done everything anonymous, but we did not - from that you can
deduct that we all are interested in communication and construction - we
are all astonished how much time you spent in the wikipedia project
(Anerkennung!) you seem to need only very little sleep - best greetings
across the ocean (from the USA) from uwe kils - user Kils 18:50 31 May
2003 (UTC)

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

It seems quite clear that Uwe Kils shares Viking's standard of "decency"
regarding Wikipedia articles and feels that material e.g. about specific
sexual practices is inappropriate. In light of his actions, I do not trust
him to be a sysop anymore.

In spite of my objections, this should normally go through discussion
first before the status is revoked, but I am worried that Kils might
delete more pages, and it seemed like an appropriate safety measure. I
also wanted to allow others to take a look at his user talk page to have a
track record, and this was not possible with him being a sysop, because
then I could not protect the page or stop him from deleting it. If anyone
feels that Kils must be a sysop again, please post.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Evercat is a sysop

body:
I have made Evercat a sysop, who has been nominated, seconded and thirded
with no objections and accepted the nomination today.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] blanket reverts

body:
 At 04:03 PM 5/31/03 -0700, Dan wrote:
>I don't think the blanket reverting efforts
directed
>at Michael are good. I went through the
contrabutions
>of 24.130.213.24x (those of you reverting know who
I'm
>talking about) and many, if not most, of his edits
>were useful and even factual. I will be
un-reverting
>all of his useful edits, but only after fact
checking.
>--LittleDan

PLEASE don't unrevert.  If you want to make the
changes, please do them under your own name.

Zoe

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com


body:
Dante-

how do you feel about the fact that he deleted his own talk page, thereby
not even leaving his explanation of the incident?

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Vicki Rosenzweig

subject: [WikiEN-l] blanket reverts

body:
At 04:03 PM 5/31/03 -0700, Dan wrote:
>I don't think the blanket reverting efforts directed
>at Michael are good. I went through the contrabutions
>of 24.130.213.24x (those of you reverting know who I'm
>talking about) and many, if not most, of his edits
>were useful and even factual. I will be un-reverting
>all of his useful edits, but only after fact checking.
>--LittleDan

There are two reasons for the blanket reversion. One is to
save a lot of effort on all our parts. That includes you. It seems
clear that fact-checking any of this person's claims takes an
enormous amount of work. If something he posts prompts you
to do research and write about it, great, but actually fact-checking
all that nonsense is not a good use of your time.

The second is that automatic reversion discourages his destructive
behavior. For this reason, I *strongly* urge you not to un-revert. (I
haven't checked the list archive to see how strongly the auto-reversion
is agreed policy, so I am urging, not demanding.)

>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
>http://calendar.yahoo.com
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org


body:
Dante-
> At 12:54 PM 5/31/2003, you wrote:
>> Dante-
>>
>> how do you feel about the fact that he deleted his own talk page, thereby
>> not even leaving his explanation of the incident?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Erik

> I don't think it's strictly true to say that he deleted his own talk page.

You misunderstand me. I was not referring to the [[User:Viking]] deletion.
He deleted the page [[User talk:Kils]] after he responded there to my
query regarding the Kils/Viking relationship, even before I could read the
response. I restored the page and revoked his sysop status to prevent him
from deleting it again, at which point he reverted it to a prior revision.
I restored the response and protected the page, to have an open track
record for this discussion. Kils then posted on my page (in German) that
he did not want his talk page to "link to pornographic pages" and asked
me, in very formal language, to delete it. Of course there is no link to
any pornographic page on the talk page, just his response which I posted
here.

That he may have deleted the Viking experiment without prior discussion, I
can understand. But normally pages should be listed on [[Wikipedia:Votes
for deletion]] first, and in this case, he really just used his sysop
privileges to remove something which, for whatever reason, he did not want
to be publicly visible.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Tucci

subject: [WikiEN-l] hello and adieu

body:
Greetings from the recently more-or-less absent
TUF-KAT (soon to be much more).  Between dropping out
of college and losing my Internet connection and
tooling around the Pacific Northwest for two weeks
(conclusion: Seattle has very clean homeless people),
I am now quite out of the loop.

Unfortunately, I will soon be even farther out of the
loop.  Sometime in the next two weeks, I will be
leaving civilization for a place with no computers
(I'm not really trying to keep it a secret -- if it
irks you, e-mail me privately; rest assured, no form
of military activity is involved) and will not return
until September at the earliest.  I may have the
chance to pop in and smoke a virtual J once or twice,
but will not be a regular contributor.  I do plan on
returning, so fear not my fellow wikipedians!  I know
your lives will seem so much more hollow and
meaningless without my wit and undeniable sexiness
(don't tell anyone, but I think Jimbo has a crush on
me, and I think he looks like Bruce Springsteen).

Early Virtual Christmas in July presents:
JTDirl: a couple bottles of guiness
Zoe:  my patented Automated Michaelese-Remover
Ultra-Deluxe Plus, and my undying gratitude for using
it
Mav:  Your mom.  BOO-YAH!
Little Dan:  my old history teacher, Fitz, who gave
out hall passes like candy (if you haven't figured it
out yet, one period a day to smoke whatever dried
plant matter floats your boat, such as sage, may be
the only thing keeping you from insanity)
Michael:  some taste in music
DW et al and Lir et al: some subtlety (see below)
Brion: a cure for your incessant laziness, you
ne'er-do-well!  Quit loafing about and make the pipe
trick work for disambiguated titles with a question
mark!  Unless of course, you're too busy designing a
better torture chamber for SADDAM HUSSEIN!!!!!!!!!!
(yes, that's right, ten exclamation marks, just to let
you know I mean business)
Julie: I don't know you really, but having perused
previous conversations and controversies, I bizarrely
picture you as looking exactly like Charlize Theron.
Will you marry me?
Stevertigo and RK: a big fatty-bo-batty, and a date
with Lil Kim
Danny:  A free trip to scenic Richmond, Virginia, home
of... oh, lots of things, really, most of them
intoxicating... provided you bring both Timothy and
Denis Leary
KQ: .5 points added to your Coolness Quotient, which
makes you tied with the new dreadlocked guy from the
utterly disappointing Matrix 2 (worst Matrix ever)
Ed Poor: Have you even been around recently?  How
about a free internet connection?  Does Sunday school
last all week these days?
Oliver: a second bowl of gruel (because I will always
picture you as a dirty, hungry young boy)

And a hearty dose of Christmas joy to everyone I've
forgotten/don't know.

Now, more on topic:

On DW's recent possible reincarnations, I have no idea
whether or not Triton is DW, as I have not seen a
single message from him.  If DW is banned, then his
contributions are not welcome and should be reverted
on sight.  We should be act without mercy on this
subject (and Lir and Michael and Helga...).  If any of
these users want to be a valuable contributor, they
have only to email Jimbo and I get the feeling he is
looking for an excuse to reinstate them.  In any case,
as I have previously said, if one of them wants to be
a trusted user under a different name, this should be
easy -- they know exactly what the rules are and, with
the possible exception of Michael, are utterly capable
of following them.  E.g. Lir is undoubtedly competent
enough to adopt a user-name and never allow herself to
be revealed as Lir.  If she ever truly repents and is
too proud or whatever to email Jimbo, we will have no
way of knowing because she will seem like any other
new contributor.  For all we know, Lir has another
identity and simply likes messing with us while using
some respected name to make valuable contributions.

On the issue of the mailing list archives being
publicly available or not, I support availability but
am averse to my name showing up on a google search.
My e-mail name is my real name, and I don't cotton to
the idea of any old body knowing I used to go by the
name "Tokerboy".  I did choose the name knowing
perfectly well that my name could be connected with
it, and I chose to accept the responsibilities, so I
can't be too outraged, but I think barring search
engines would be nice without inhibiting transparency
to any reasonable degree (assuming interested parties
could still search the mailing list archives if they
were truly interested).  There is another sensitive
issue (to non-American Wikipedians: the name
"Tokerboy" revealed my proclivity for recreationally
smoking cannabis and I am here discussing an entirely
unrelated controversial issue which I will not name as
long as the mailing list is google-archived), related
to my iminent departure, which I will not allow to be
related to my real name.  I have successfuly avoided
the connection by asking another user to act as a
proxy when necessary (thanks you-know-who).

On to the specific subject of Michael.  I don't know
why he he has chosen Zoe to harass instead of me,
because I was the first person to ban his original IP
address and the first and originaly most vocal
proponent of his outright permanent ban, but I support
the deletion of all his supposed contributions.  I
have seen some people speak in support of checking his
facts before deleting and must reiterate that this is
a pointless waste of time.  Most will be correct, but
just enough will be wrong that any fact is suspect --
this makes virtually anything relating to his brand of
pseudo-punkish/lite metal suspect and, by exension,
the whole Wikipedia.  In any case, the true facts are
almost always a track listing and a description of the
band's generic classification (which is usually
questionable and often outright wrong).  In any case,
this information is hardly difficult to find for the
bands he is interested in, so I feel no compunctions
about deleting it.  Even if he every fact he entered
was correct, he would be an essentially useless
contributor, filling links with gramatically incorrect
stubs that provide no more information than a couple
dozen fan sites that appear higher than Wikipedia on
any search engine.  I am also about 82% sure that he
has some sort of mental malfunction, like autism, that
impairs him -- I have no proof, just a terribly
certain feeling -- and almost feel bad about reverting
his perhaps well-meaning contributions.  I have had
reasonably extensive contact with mentally impaired
persons (once more, email me if this intrigues you)
and he strikes me as such, if not autistic then
somehow mentally impaired.  I bear him no ill-will and
I have the utmost respect for those who wish to allow
him increased latitude, but I don't think it is worth
it to grant him the freedom.  IIRC, he logs in from
Alberta, unfortunately a different jurisdiction than
myself, but I bet that Canada has plenty of
opportunities for him to have an active and full life
without detracting from our project.  After all, they
don't have an empire to pay for.

Anyway, adieu my friend!  Cry not for me, Wikipedia,
for the truth is, I never left you -- I will simply
find myself without a computer with which to inform
you of my contributions.  You may find yourself
wandering aimlessly through life during my departure.
This is normal, and can be expected; simply smoke
something that reminds you of me, and you shall feel
rejuvenated and, perhaps, will discover a love for
[[reggae]].  In any case, be strong and I shall
return!!!!

Tokingly yours, TUF-KAT

P.S. reading this message, it may be terribly
Americocentric.  Feel free to e-mail me privately for
explanations -- if I have the time before my
departure, I will explain.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


from_name: James D. Forrester

body:
On Saturday, 31st May 2003, at 19:53, Erik Moeller wrote:
> Fred-
> > My example would be [[Baltzar von Platen]], an excellent
> > example of a short article that stands alone with useful
> > and interesting links.
>
> This is not an article. It's a disambiguation page that is
> not in the proper form.

Indeed, but when he posted the link, it was to what is now located
at [[Baltzar von Platen (1898-1984)]]. Such is the Wikipedia, after
all. Perhaps one could look at the page's history, but...

[Snip]

Yours,
--
James D. Forrester
<mailto:jon at eh.org> | <mailto:csvla at dcs.warwick.ac.uk>
<mailto:jamesdforrester at hotmail.com> | <mailto:james at jdforrester.org>


from_name: uwe kils

subject: [WikiEN-l] blocking of erased page viking

body:
Dear Mr. Moeller!
I asked you to erase my talk page which you reverted even though I
erased some of it as invited sysop. Instead of doing it you threat me
now you will leave it up longer and even blocked it, opend the ugly
content of [[user:Mbecker]] discussions and threat me that only if I
voluntarily let go of the sysop status you will open the "protection".
If you think you can take these liberties as a developer and act
accordingly I ask you hereby to immediately erase the whole user:kils
page or immediately give me back my sysop status so I can do it. I am
not willing to appear in a project which hosts images like the
clitoris.jpg on
http://www.wikipedia.org/upload/archive/1/19/20030520015715!
Clitoris.jpg , which is a clear conflict with USA pornography law,
probably even copyright law. This image has been mounted by your
partner Michael Becker [[user:Mbecker]]
who made a motion to ban our viking project. After I read as
administrator that six users on the sysop mailing list requested to ban
viking I did what they asked me for as sysop.
As soon as the pornographic content is gone and some other pages are
edited to be within the rules again I might discuss with BOMIS CEO
about a further cooperation as editor and the reason for the pause.
Sincerely yours Dr. Uwe Kils [[User:Kils|Kils]] 03:28 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

-------------------------
Dr. Uwe Kils
161 South Concord Terrace
08205 Galloway
New Jersey USA
kils at comcast.net
001 609 748 9693

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: kils.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 153 bytes
Desc: Card for uwe kils <kils at comcast.net>
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030531/a38cbadc/attachment.vcf


from_name: JFrost8401 at aol.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] naming convention for birds

body:
A great deal of the discussion took place on this mailing list. The people
actually writing the bird articles wanted capitalisation, which is what they are
familiar with in virtually all field guides, and major texts such as HANZAB,
Handbook of Birds Of The World, Birds of the Western Palearctic etc.

The compromise was that this would be the practice, but there must be a lower
case redirect.

Jim (jimfbleak)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030601/649e76e9/attachment.htm


from_name: Dante Alighieri

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Viking

body:
At 05:09 PM 5/31/2003, you wrote:
>Preponderance of the evidence?

Yeah, it means most of the evidence. In other words, it's more likely than not.

-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
    -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030601/8b585d58/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] naming convention for birds

body:
At 09:02 PM 5/31/2003, you wrote:
>daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:
>
>>Where was the discussion for the naming convention for animals. A new
>>user is reverting the Canada goose, and I really don't want to get into
>>that whole fight again.
>>
>>Danny
>
>It was never resolved.
>According to the The Globe and Mail Style Book: "The generic English names
>of animals and plants, and common adjectives attached to them, are
>lower-case".  Certainly the provisions of a Canadian style book should
>apply to a Canadian species.
>
>Also the Style Manual for Biological Journals as "Prepared by the
>Committee on Form and Style of the Conference of Biological Editors of the
>American Institute of Biological Sciences" states at page 68, "Generic
>names used as vernacular names are neither italicized nor capitalized"

The Canada goose is not a strictly Canadian species. There are countless
Canada geese every day (during the appropriate season) in my neighborhood,
and I live in California.

-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
    -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030601/bb737ce8/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Request for admin access -- Mbecker

body:
At 01:01 AM 6/1/2003, you wrote:
>I would like to request administrative privileges to the Wikipedia so
>that I can contribute more.
>I would like to be able to update the Main Page sometimes when it needs
>updating.  I would like to regularly update some of the statistics pages
>which require sql queries.  And, or course, I feel that I would be able
>to better serve the community if my account was unrestricted.
>
>--
>Michael Becker

I second Mbecker for sysop status, I can't think of anyone else with Becker
in their username who is more deserving. :) Although that name "Michael"
does sound suspicious... maybe we should just ban everyone named Michael
from the Wikipedia... just to be sure.

-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
    -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030601/b1eb52e4/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] A new article... perhaps a bad idea...

body:
Well, I just created a new article titled [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia and
Religion]]. Let's hope it doesn't prove to be a Bad Thing...

Please check it out...
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AWikipedia_and_Religion

-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
    -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030601/6ebfb718/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] FW: Regarding Advertising on Wikipedia

body:
At 02:05 AM 6/1/2003, you wrote:
>phrases like
>"Once Duke Nukem Forever is released"
>"Once fusion power becomes feasible"
>"Once copyright terms are reduced to 14 years".

You forgot:

"Once Lucasarts releases a Star Wars PC game that isn't crap"

-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
    -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030601/30bd672e/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] blanket reverts

body:
At 02:21 AM 6/1/2003, you wrote:
>Perhaps I should be a little more explicit. I would like Michael to leave
>the project, I think he has outstayed his welcome and I trust nothing that
>he writes. Unless a definite policy is made regarding what to do with
>Michael's edits is made, or unless Jimmy Wales tells me not to, I am going
>to continue reverting Michael's contributions without discussion with him.

There IS a definite policy. Here is the link to the WikiEN-l message where
Jimbo confirms (again) that Michael and all of his derivatives are
HARD-banned. http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-May/003890.html

Check here for Wikipedia policy on users who are hard-banned.
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/bans_and_blocks

I interpret this, especially given Jimmy's language: "Sysops and developers
can take whatever  steps are necessary to make this technologically
effective", to mean that Michael is not meant to be allowed to make ANY
edits to the Wikipedia. Thus, if anyone reverts another sysops reversion of
Michael's edits, I would take this to be in violation of Wikipedia policy.
As someone else suggested (I believe it was Zoe), if the material that
Michael adds inspires you do to your own research on a topic and add in
information on your own, under your own name, so be it. Nevertheless I
believe that this would have the unfortunate result of further encouraging
Michael.

In order to resolve this issue, I am asking someone with developer access
to explore ways to permanently ban Michael (and his IP-hopping alter-egos)
from the Wikipedia. As, I believe, this will be extremely problematic, I
suggest we follow Anome's suggestion from the Vandalism in Progress page
and contact AOL's abuse division. I am not comfortable doing this as a
representative of the Administration at Wikipedia unless I receive general
support for it. I would much prefer Jimmy or someone with developer access
to make that call, but I also don't wish to burden them.

Furthermore, I believe that it may be possible to pursue legal action
against Michael (which could potentially force AOL to turn over his user
information, which would probably stop Michael even if we didn't follow
through with the lawsuit) either under the DMCA (unauthorized access of
computer networks) or civilly under libel laws (he has made MANY libelous
statements in my opinion). This, while admittedly extreme, could help us
put an end, finally, to Michael's reign of irritation, and save many of us
valuable time and energy... not to mention frustration.

Thoughts?

-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
    -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030601/c6815684/attachment.htm


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] An Excellent Short Article was Limits to the
	non-paperiness of Wikipedia?

body:
But does information about a person who was important in the history of the
production of artificial diamonds belong in an article on gas absorption
refrigerators?

The point is that Baltzar von Platen (both of them) did significant things
during their lives but not enough to justify more than a few words in an
encyclopedic work. But both did several significant things during their life
and can not be reasonably be put into some other article.

The first one build a canal but was found also in the list of prime
ministers of Norway.

Neither (based on information I have now) justify an extensive article of
the 20,000 word sort, but do justify articles in the 100 to 500 word range.

Fred

> From: erik_moeller at gmx.de (Erik Moeller)
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> Date: 01 Jun 2003 07:14:00 +0200
> To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] An Excellent Short Article was Limits to the
> non-paperiness of Wikipedia?
>
> James-
>> Indeed, but when he posted the link, it was to what is now located
>> at [[Baltzar von Platen (1898-1984)]]. Such is the Wikipedia, after
>> all. Perhaps one could look at the page's history, but...
>
> Aha.
>
> I don't know about that von Platen's historical significance, and the
> article certainly doesn't give me a good idea of it. The way it stands
> right now, I would prefer the relevant information to be moved to an
> article about the [[gas absorption refrigerator]], especially since much
> of it does not refer to the person but to the historical context:
>
> "In 1923 production by AB Arctic began. In 1925 AB Arctic was purchased
> by Electrolux which began selling them worldwide. Servel purchased rights
> to manufacture the refrigerator in 1925 and was the only U.S. manufacturer
> for many years."
>
> If all von Platen is famous for is his participation in the development of
> refrigerators, then no, I do not think he necessarily needs his own
> article. That's what redirects are for.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


from_name: root

body:
I would like to request administrative privileges to the Wikipedia so
that I can contribute more.
I would like to be able to update the Main Page sometimes when it needs
updating.  I would like to regularly update some of the statistics pages
which require sql queries.  And, or course, I feel that I would be able
to better serve the community if my account was unrestricted.

--
Michael Becker


from_name: Michael Becker

body:
An interesting way to offer advertising, would be to offer to let people
sponsor pages.  This is done with Highways, (i.e. This section of
highway sponsored by such and such).  I think many users would like this
idea, and would sponsor pages they contributed heavily to, and you could
offer packages for "advertisers" outside of the project like mentioned
above, (using some sort of algorithm to figure out what pages are
relevant) and then offer a price per page type thing.

http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_on_Wikipedia

--
Michael Becker


body:
I am not trying to debate weather or not advertising is right, I am just
trying to suggest what I think would be a good way to implement
advertising in the wikipedia if it ever comes to that.

--
Michael Becker

-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org]
On Behalf Of Erik Moeller
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 5.05
To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Regarding Advertising on Wikipedia

Any kind of advertising will hurt our credibility as an educational
project. Once the Nupedia Foundation is set up[1], raising money should
be
easy enough.

Regards,

Erik

[1] A phrase which will in future times be listed alongside similar
phrases like
"Once Duke Nukem Forever is released"
"Once fusion power becomes feasible"
"Once copyright terms are reduced to 14 years".
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
Daniel-

> No, if Kils is Viking, then hih sysop status
> DEFINATELY shouldn'y be restored. Sysops *really*
> shouldn't make pseudonyms or intimidate others. But I
> haven't seen enough evidence that Kils is Viking.

It's a bit more complicated than that. Read my first post in this thread.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Fair use

body:
Marco Krohn wrote, quoting Axel Boldt:
> "Illustrating an article by adding a photo creates a derivative
> work, therefore the whole has to be put under GFDL, therefore it cannot
> be fair use material (or anything besides public domain or GFDL)."

This is not valid reasoning.  If accurate, then we can't even quote
from copyrighted sources, not even one sentence of quotation, because
all such use is done under a "fair use" doctrine.

Suppose we have an article about a book by Noam Chomsky.  We wish to
explain the thesis of the book, and toward that end, we quote a
relevant sentence from the book.  This is perfectly valid, and it is
fair use.

What is the situation in German law?  You seem to be arguing that
there is no such thing as fair use in German law, but that strikes me
as virtually impossible.  Can you give the details?

By the way, I agree with those who say that (a) strictly speaking,
German law is not of primary interest to us, but also with those who
say that (b) if we can make sure that the encyclopedia is
redistributable in Germany, too, that's a good thing, if it doesn't
cost much in terms of content.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Fair use

in_reply_to: <8mto0uISpVB@erik_moeller>; from erik_moeller@gmx.de on Sat, May 31, 2003 at 11:14:00AM +0200

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> Sure. Fair use is a rare exception to the rule that we should not use
> copyrighted materials.

And it is one which we should approach with great caution.  I would be
in favor of never relying on "fair use" at all, except that it would
be silly and close to impossible to do so, particularly since ordinary
quotes from copyrighted texts are "fair use".  Shall we have a rule
that we can't quote a few words from a copyrighted text?  Absurd, I
think.

Even so, caution is warranted, because re-users might not be in the
same position vis a vis fair use as we are.  And we should be
sensitive to that.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Fair use

body:
Marco Krohn wrote:
> I am more interested in the consequences of adding "fair use" images to the
> articles. As Axel pointed out we will violate the GFDL by embedding "fair
> use" images in our articles.

I don't think it is at all obvious that adding "fair use" content to
an article makes it incompatible with the GFDL.  If so, then we have a
major problem with respect to even quoting copyrighted books.

Alex has said this, and you have echoed it, but I'd like to see a full
analysis of it before we rely on it or accept it as true.

If it *is* true that nothing GFDL can contain any "fair use" content
at all, then we will have to not quote from books or newspapers.  But
I think that's absurd, and I think that the GFDL is not incompatible
with ordinary fair use.

--Jimbo


in_reply_to: <8mtoAJ+xpVB@erik_moeller>; from erik_moeller@gmx.de on Sat, May 31, 2003 at 09:08:00PM +0200

body:
I support this.  Sysop is only a technical matter, and threatening people
with it in any way is very unbecoming.  The rest of this is a bit confusing
to me, but nonetheless, as a temporary measure, this is fine with me.

Erik Moeller wrote:

> I have temporarily revoked Kils' sysop status on en:, someone with
> developer status on de: may want to do the same. Explanation:
>
> In the last few days, a user named "Viking" has vandalized/downsized a
> couple of articles he considered "indecent" (especially the [[fisting]]
> article), threatened people not to question what he is doing if they
> didn't have "administrator status" and then left (there was a brief
> discussion of a possible ban). Kils subsequently deleted Viking's user and
> talk pages and explained it was an "experiment of his children".
>
> I asked him for details, he responded and then *deleted his talk page*
> before I could read his response. I restored the talk page and there was
> the following response.
>
> -----------------------
>
>  Eloquence: I confirm this - I do not think any had the quality of
> vandlism, otherwise I would have stepped in. We were concerned that a
> "handbook type" with direct instructions to certain practises on certain
> pages was endangering the reputation of wikipeia and of us as visible
> contributers and cooperators. A first thing many teachers and professors
> for example do, before they endorse or use a web based project in class or
> with students/parents, is to search for ugly content within. And there was
> some, and as we were supported by responses of colleagues with the right
> background it was beyond the rules of wikipedia - young vikings are often
> of very spontaneous mannors, I advised them to do things different, but
> then we are also very democratic. they plan to do it different now - we
> could have done everything anonymous, but we did not - from that you can
> deduct that we all are interested in communication and construction - we
> are all astonished how much time you spent in the wikipedia project
> (Anerkennung!) you seem to need only very little sleep - best greetings
> across the ocean (from the USA) from uwe kils - user Kils 18:50 31 May
> 2003 (UTC)
>
> -----------------------
>
> It seems quite clear that Uwe Kils shares Viking's standard of "decency"
> regarding Wikipedia articles and feels that material e.g. about specific
> sexual practices is inappropriate. In light of his actions, I do not trust
> him to be a sysop anymore.
>
> In spite of my objections, this should normally go through discussion
> first before the status is revoked, but I am worried that Kils might
> delete more pages, and it seemed like an appropriate safety measure. I
> also wanted to allow others to take a look at his user talk page to have a
> track record, and this was not possible with him being a sysop, because
> then I could not protect the page or stop him from deleting it. If anyone
> feels that Kils must be a sysop again, please post.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


in_reply_to: <5.2.0.9.2.20030531132259.0276b098@digitalgrapefruit.com>; from dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com on Sat, May 31, 2003 at 01:27:26PM -0700

body:
Dante Alighieri wrote:
> >That he may have deleted the Viking experiment without prior discussion, I
> >can understand. But normally pages should be listed on [[Wikipedia:Votes
> >for deletion]] first, and in this case, he really just used his sysop
> >privileges to remove something which, for whatever reason, he did not want
> >to be publicly visible.

I should add that I'm not particularly comfortable with the page in
question, [[fisting]], myself.  Let me tie this back to some concerns
raised by LittleDan last week or the week before about accessibility
in schools, etc.

I've always come down on the side of including such content, and I
haven't changed my position on that.  Even so, I do think that there
are some legitimate concerns, and that the tradeoffs we face here are
not trivial.

--Jimbo


from_name: cprompt

subject: [WikiEN-l] Want to advertise on Wikipedia? Here is out rate card

body:
Tony Wilson wrote:

>For the convenience of our clients, we provide two different ways to
>advertise on Wikipedia. Feel free to choose whichever way best suits
>you and your business.
>
>Do you only have $10? That's fine, our price to you is $11.
>
*snip*

>When you think of advertising, think of Wikipedia.
>
>
*applause*

--

--cprompt


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Fair use

body:
Axel-
> Check out for example the excellent collection of portrait photographs
> donated to the Library of Congress.

Which one specifically?

>>> Next, once our foundation has
>>> money, we can try to acquire the copyright of selected important
>>> images we need and cannot get in any other way.
>>
>> The problem with that approach is that we need an exclusive
>> world-wide license, since we need to allow unlimited redistribution
>> and modification.

> *non-exclusive*

Actually, what we need is probably a transfer of the copyright to us, or
at the very least a contract that allows unlimited sublicensing. Remember,
we want to allow forks, commercial re-use etc. This is what is so
expensive, because it deviates from normal company licensing policies,
where you are allowed to use a work *in your product*, but certainly not
to give others the right to create and distribute derivative works.

>> This is *very* expensive for most professional photographs, and
>> impossible for many.

> So instead you suggest to simply take them for free, hoping that fair
> use applies?

My, what nice rhetoric. Next you are going to accuse me of "stealing" ;-).
And this from someone who thinks intellectual property rights do not exist
(your user page). See where this kind of mentality is taking us? Copyright
paranoia.

What I do suggest is that we use common sense to determine the few cases
where we think fair use law is applicable, instead of simply ignoring
these few loopholes in the current restrictive copyright code. I would
think that someone opposed to intellectual property would embrace the idea
that we should defend and make use of our rights, instead of bowing to the
pressure from copyright holders.

> I think Brion's suggestion of simply linking to the external site
> containing the photograph is a win-win-win-win proposal:

> * The copyright owner gets exposure
> * Our readers get access to the educational content
> * We are still able to burn a CD with all our material and put "GFDL"
> on the cover
> * The inconvenience of the external link encourages contributors to
> hunt for free substitute photographs.

Alas, it also has several problems:

- When the website is down, the image is no longer available. Broken links
often go unnoticed for longer periods of time because we have no way to
systematically check them.
- The image is no longer embedded in the proper context. It becomes
difficult to associate image content with image text.
- The reader is taken away from the Wikipedia navigational structure to a
non-HTML image page. This is bad user interface design.

So the win/win/win/win situation becomes a win/win/win/win/lose/lose/lose
situation, at which point I think it more convenient to refer to it as a
suboptimal solution.

I do support this method of illustrating articles in cases where we
believe fair use law not to apply, e.g. maps from Mapquest.com. We can
agree that because of the risk of legal liability for Bomis.com

- fair use should be kept at a minimum,
- in other cases, this method should be used,
- the database should contain as much information about copyright status
as possible.

But I do not agree with exclusively linking to copyrighted pictures.

Regards,

Erik


body:
James-
> Indeed, but when he posted the link, it was to what is now located
> at [[Baltzar von Platen (1898-1984)]]. Such is the Wikipedia, after
> all. Perhaps one could look at the page's history, but...

Aha.

I don't know about that von Platen's historical significance, and the
article certainly doesn't give me a good idea of it. The way it stands
right now, I would prefer the relevant information to be moved to an
article about the [[gas absorption refrigerator]], especially since much
of it does not refer to the person but to the historical context:

"In 1923 production by AB Arctic began. In 1925 AB Arctic was purchased
by Electrolux which began selling them worldwide. Servel purchased rights
to manufacture the refrigerator in 1925 and was the only U.S. manufacturer
for many years."

If all von Platen is famous for is his participation in the development of
refrigerators, then no, I do not think he necessarily needs his own
article. That's what redirects are for.

Regards,

Erik


body:
Uwe et al.-

> I asked you to erase my talk page

<snip>

See my response on

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk%3AEloquence

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Toby Bartels

body:
Tannin wrote in part:

>This is our premium package and naturally it's a little more expensive
>than inferior packages from our competitors, but we are sure that you
>will agree it's worth it. Because Wikipedia is an equal opportunity
>media outlet and does not discriminate against any social group, we
>adjust our rates to suit your capacity to pay. For the High Visibility
>Premium Package, we charge just 110% of however much you have.

I have absolutely no money whatsoever.
(Math note: 110% * $0 = $0.)

Just be glad that I'm not in debt!

-- Toby


subject: [WikiEN-l] Michael and hard ban

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote in part:

>Dante Alighieri wrote:

>>Also, can this be posted on the Wikipedia so that it can be
>>easily linked to?

>I assume this email message, via the archvies, will be sufficient.

For your convenience, you'll want to link to this URL:
<http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-May/003890.html>.

-- Toby


from_name: Daniel Ehrenberg

body:
Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote: > I should add that I'm not particularly comfortable with the page in
> question, [[fisting]], myself.

Any more or less so than any of the other articles in [[List of sexology
topics]]?

Regards,

Erik

No, some of those topics are perfectly acceptable and should have articles, such as homosexuality and AIDS. I would fight against an article on fisting, but I already pledged not to.
--LittleDan

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030601/77b942a4/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] JTDirl sysop issue

body:
Dante Alighieri wrote:

>For what it's worth, I support JTDirl as a sysop. I don't think that JTD
>was being rude to FB on his page, I think that perhaps FB isn't looking at
>it in the same light that it was intended.

I also support administrator status for JTD, unreservedly.
I don't always agree with him, but the same goes for other admins,
from Jimmy Wales to The Cunctator to Fred Bauder.
OK, Jimbo is more polite than JTD -- but not all sysops are!

The note on [[User:Fred Bauder]] that Fred pointed out to us
is in fact very good reason for supporting JTD's promotion --
it demonstrates how Fred's personal feelings about JTD
colour his reaction to everything that JTD writes.
The post was in fact a model of civil behaviour.

>On a side note, even if it WAS rude, if ever being rude was a valid reason
>to deny someone sysop status, then a WHOLE bunch of sysops are in SERIOUS
>trouble. lol (laughing out loud, remember? You DID go read [[leet]], didn't
>you?)

Yes, I checked to see if it had any indication
why "lol" always means "laughing out loud", never "lots of luck",
even in a post that makes much more sense the latter way.
As it turns out, [[Leet]] says nothing about "lol" at all.

In your case, however, I agree that it means "laughing out loud".
^_^

-- Toby


subject: [WikiEN-l] blanket reverts

body:
Kingturtle wrote:

>pages that are blanked for reasons regarding banned users should be marked
>as such. please make it very clear to the other users why you are doing
>it.

This is a quite reasonable request, but the technical system
that we have to make reversion easy -- the rollback feature --
doesn't have a space for comments.  And ideas for aiding that?

-- Toby


body:
Uwe Kils wrote in part:

>As soon as the pornographic content is gone and some other pages are
>edited to be within the rules again I might discuss with BOMIS CEO
>about a further cooperation as editor and the reason for the pause.
>Sincerely yours Dr. Uwe Kils [[User:Kils|Kils]] 03:28 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Given the Vikings' penchant for appeals to authority,
I'd like to hear Jimmy's opinion about all of this.
The Vikings have sometimes implied that their here by special request
and that their actions have been in "consultation" with important people.

-- Toby


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Fair use

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>What I do suggest is that we use common sense to determine the few cases
>where we think fair use law is applicable, instead of simply ignoring
>these few loopholes in the current restrictive copyright code. I would
>think that someone opposed to intellectual property would embrace the idea
>that we should defend and make use of our rights, instead of bowing to the
>pressure from copyright holders.
>
I agree with this approach, but I don't see where we have had problems
with the copyright holders themselves.  It would be easy to agree to
remove this material if the request came from the copyright holder
himself.  The pressure so=far seems to be coming from people who imagine
that something is copyright.

To me, an important question is, "Can a copyright exist without a
copyright holder?"  In a simple case suppose that the apparent copyright
holder died intestate last year, with no apparent heir, and not enough
in personal assets to warrant probate.  Who now owns the copyright?

My inclination would be to use borderline material, with an appropriate
warning that we will happily remove on request from a properly
identified owner.

Eclecticology


body:
No, I think it would be ok to have advertizers sponsor pages. Here is an expansion on the idea. The ad is in small text and simply says:this page sponsored by [[Toyota]]. with a link to their *wikipedia* article. If one doesn't exist, they can write one, but it still must be NPOV. This type of low-impact advertizing often has (ironically) the biggest effect because people aren't as annoyed. A wikipedian could also sponsor the page with a link to their userpage. More than one person or company could sponsor a page. The homepage couldn't be sponsored. Each sponsor request would be screened to prevent linking [[Toyota|Toyota, the beat car company in the world]]. I would cost, say, $1 for 100 impressions, to encourage low-budget advertizers and users to sponsor things. I don't think this would lower our academic credibility at all.
--LittleDan

Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
Michael-
> An interesting way to offer advertising, would be to offer to let people
> sponsor pages. This is done with Highways, (i.e. This section of
> highway sponsored by such and such). I think many users would like this
> idea, and would sponsor pages they contributed heavily to, and you could
> offer packages for "advertisers" outside of the project like mentioned
> above, (using some sort of algorithm to figure out what pages are
> relevant) and then offer a price per page type thing.

Any kind of advertising will hurt our credibility as an educational
project. Once the Nupedia Foundation is set up[1], raising money should be
easy enough.

Regards,

Erik

[1] A phrase which will in future times be listed alongside similar
phrases like
"Once Duke Nukem Forever is released"
"Once fusion power becomes feasible"
"Once copyright terms are reduced to 14 years".

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030601/488afab2/attachment.htm


body:
oh, I forgot, the advertizers also would only get the pages they chose, not all relivant pages. (or, for $5 for wikipedia, someone at wikipedia can find them by hand).

Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com> wrote:No, I think it would be ok to have advertizers sponsor pages. Here is an expansion on the idea. The ad is in small text and simply says:this page sponsored by [[Toyota]]. with a link to their *wikipedia* article. If one doesn't exist, they can write one, but it still must be NPOV. This type of low-impact advertizing often has (ironically) the biggest effect because people aren't as annoyed. A wikipedian could also sponsor the page with a link to their userpage. More than one person or company could sponsor a page. The homepage couldn't be sponsored. Each sponsor request would be screened to prevent linking [[Toyota|Toyota, the beat car company in the world]]. I would cost, say, $1 for 100 impressions, to encourage low-budget advertizers and users to sponsor things. I don't think this would lower our academic credibility at all.
--LittleDan

Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
Michael-
> An interesting way to offer advertising, would be to offer to let people
> sponsor pages. This is done with Highways, (i.e. This section of
> highway sponsored by such and such). I think many users would like this
> idea, and would sponsor pages they contributed heavily to, and you could
> offer packages for "advertisers" outside of the project like mentioned
> above, (using some sort of algorithm to figure out what pages are
> relevant) and then offer a price per page type thing.

Any kind of advertising will hurt our credibility as an educational
project. Once the Nupedia Foundation is set up[1], raising money should be
easy enough.

Regards,

Erik

[1] A phrase which will in future times be listed alongside similar
phrases like
"Once Duke Nukem Forever is released"
"Once fusion power becomes ! feasible"
"Once copyright terms are reduced to 14 years".

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030601/308f0f43/attachment.htm


from_name: Christopher Mahan

body:
Now I know Yahoo's spam filter does not work. ;-)

--- Tony Wilson <list at redhill.net.au> wrote:
> For the convenience of our clients, we provide two different ways
> to
> advertise on Wikipedia. Feel free to choose whichever way best
> suits
> you and your business.
>
> 1: THE HIGH VISIBILITY PACKAGE
>
> With our award-winning Wikipedia High Visibility Advertising
> Package,
> you get nothing but the best: we give you 100% full control over no
> less than 100% of the available screen space in as many Wikipedia
> articles as you wish to place your advertising in. That's a
> fantastic
> offer that no other on-line encyclopedia can match.
>
> But that's not all! We also give YOU the choice of article, and
> there
> is NO EXTRA CHARGE for high-traffic pages.
>
> Want to replace the entire content of SEX with your company logo?
> No
> problem.
>
> Want to redirect the MAIN PAGE to your on-line shopping portal? Go
> right ahead.
>
> It's all part of the famous Wikipedia High Visibility Premium
> Advertising Package.
>
> This is our premium package and naturally it's a little more
> expensive
> than inferior packages from our competitors, but we are sure that
> you
> will agree it's worth it. Because Wikipedia is an equal opportunity
> media outlet and does not discriminate against any social group, we
> adjust our rates to suit your capacity to pay. For the High
> Visibility
> Premium Package, we charge just 110% of however much you have.
>
> Do you only have $10? That's fine, our price to you is $11.
>
> What if you seach a litle harder and find that you can pay the $11
> after all? Well, then you have a greater capacity to pay than we
> thought, and your price is now $12.10.
>
> Or maybe you have 10 billion dollars. That's fine too: your special
> low
> price for you is 11 billion.
>
> 2: THE BUDGET PACKAGE
>
> We know that our High Visibility Package is not for everyone. Some
> people just don't have 10% more money than they have. In fact,
> calculated on a world-wide basis, the number of people who can
> afford
> our High Visibility Premium Package is ... er ... zero. No matter:
> that's why we also offer a Budget Package that absolutely everybody
> can
> afford.
>
> For just $1, you can advertise on any Wikipedia page you chose.
> That's
> right, any page at all.
>
> Want to advertise on two pages? Just send $2.
>
> Or send $5 and advertise on any five pages, and we will give you a
> sixth page ABSOLUTELY FREE!!!
>
> Don't have dollars in your part of the world? No wories - as part
> of
> the fuss-free Wikipedia Budget Package service, we accept any
> currency.
> You can send US dollars, euros, pffenings, yen, cowrie shells,
> monopoly
> money, or even hand-draw your own banknotes!!! (OK, we admit that
> we
> don't take New Zealand dollars but, after all, we have to draw the
> line
> somewhere.)
>
> Naturally, the Wikipedia Budget Package doesn't give you quite as
> much
> for your money as our High Visibility Premium Package, but you can
> still place any content you desire on each and every one of the
> pages
> you have bought sponsorship rights to (up to a limit of  0.0% of
> the
> available space). Yes, that's right, a full ZERO percent!
>
> When you think of advertising, think of Wikipedia.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

=====
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
818.943.1850 cell
http://www.christophermahan.com/

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com


body:
Ulrich Fuchs wrote:

>The issue with many small interlinked articles is noise. You won't be able to
>type in "Sauna" and find what you would reasonably expect there (an
>etymology, a bit about finnish culture, health issues, literature links),
>instead you will have to use a *Search engine*, type in "Sauna" there, and
>get an immense number of articles that aren't related to the subject at all,
>like the fact that Johan Paulik made a film "Sauna paradiso" and that the MV
>Blue Marvin (a ship) also has a sauna.

???  Why in the world would you use a search engine?
Even if [[Etymology of 'sauna']], [[Saunas in Finnish culture]],
[[Health issues of saunas]], and [[Literature about saunas]]
all end up large enough to deserve their own articles
(unlikely but conceivable), you can *still* go to [[Sauna]]
and find all of that -- even if just links to these pages.
You never have to use a search engine and get all of that noise!
The whole point of having a human-written page [[Sauna]] would be:
* To give a brief discussion about all of these topics,
  before sending you off to the separate page if you want more; and
* To list all of the pages that you'd be likely to want,
  without giving you noise that [[Sauna paradiso]] and [[MV Blue Marvin]].
This is just what you need to avoid relying on the noisy search engine.

>This is the problem which we have with
>the WWW today already, and we should do everything to avoid that wikipedia
>will be running into the same problem in some years and just shows up as the
>same noisy mess the WWW is today.

The WWW doesn't have that problem *if* there's a single main page
for a given subject that shows up first when you look for it
(this is often the case, for example, with an organisation
that you search for using Yahoo!).  Otherwise it's a problem.
On Wikipedia, we'll avoid that problem by having the page [[Sauna]].

>We already have that problem right now: Go
>and try to enter "palestine" in the wikipedia search: There are more than 500
>matches. The one article named "Palestine" is more or less a link list. What
>tells me that? I don't get the information out of Wikipedia, I'll get it out
>of Britannica. (Check out this link and you'll understand the difference:
>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=115036)

Typing "palestine" in the search is silly; go to [[Palestine]] instead.
None of the articles named [[Palestine]] on any of the language wikis
(when linked to from [[en:Palestine]]) is "more or less a link list".
One could argue about whether they're better or worse than EB's,
but your charge is unsupportable.

>In other words: I do not want to need a google on wikipedia, to filter out
>noise, because it probably filters out that part of noise I am interested in.
>The only way to deal with that are IMHO *large* articles, structured by good
>editors. It is far easier to scroll down a large article with good structure
>(headlines) until you reach the part you are interested, than to klick around
>and hope to find that piece of information somewhere in some article which is
>somehow linked by a chain of three other articles.

"a chain of three other articles" -- nobody is suggesting this!
The question is simply whether you'll find everything on [[Sauna]]
or whether [[Sauna]] will instead link to them directly.

-- Toby


body:
Michael Becker wrote:

>An interesting way to offer advertising, would be to offer to let people
>sponsor pages.  This is done with Highways, (i.e. This section of
>highway sponsored by such and such).  I think many users would like this
>idea, and would sponsor pages they contributed heavily to, and you could
>offer packages for "advertisers" outside of the project like mentioned
>above, (using some sort of algorithm to figure out what pages are
>relevant) and then offer a price per page type thing.
>
sounds like the thin edge of the wedge to me.

For anything like this to be considered seriously we would first need a
responsible discussion of Wikipedia finances, and the development of a
business plan.

All ( :-) !) our present sources of funding are opposed to advertising.
 Co-incidentally, I happen to agree with that position, so I'm not about
to complain against my own interests.

Ec


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikipedia is forgetting my e-mail address

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

Je Diman?o 01 Junio 2003 10:24, Kurt Jansson skribis:
> (I'm using Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; de-AT; rv:1.3)
> Gecko/20030312)
>
> There is also a known bug that I can't see my e-mail address in the
> preferences, although it has been entered. But I guess this isn't
> related.

Yes, that's the same thing. It blanks the e-mail field in preferences,
then when you save your preferences it stores a blank for your e-mail
address.

Tell Mozilla to forget the stored form data for the login form; it gets
confused and tries to put stuff into the preferences form -- including
the blank e-mail address for creating new accounts.

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+2i/WxVlOmwh1xjgRAjk9AJ9W/2gpMd/1mne/ZGwG49GJRO+SvgCfWSG3
SeTy/aBRpmKQDyDNeGaLBug=
=5FXh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] blanket reverts

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

Je Diman?o 01 Junio 2003 08:59, Toby Bartels skribis:
> Kingturtle wrote:
> >pages that are blanked for reasons regarding banned users should be
> > marked as such. please make it very clear to the other users why
> > you are doing it.
>
> This is a quite reasonable request, but the technical system
> that we have to make reversion easy -- the rollback feature --
> doesn't have a space for comments.  And ideas for aiding that?

Hmm... that would defeat the purpose of it being a one-click mass
timesaver. If you need to add comments, probably best to follow the
usual procedure via page history.

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+2jCixVlOmwh1xjgRApoNAJ9BCR0qSPECZtoWFY4R/8v+NBbucACeKdgX
A4PXd/3tho+Hd1UKJwqzNRU=
=3z4W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
At 04:01 AM 6/1/03 -0400, Michael Becker wrote:
>I would like to request administrative privileges to the Wikipedia so
>that I can contribute more.
>I would like to be able to update the Main Page sometimes when it needs
>updating.  I would like to regularly update some of the statistics pages
>which require sql queries.  And, or course, I feel that I would be able
>to better serve the community if my account was unrestricted.

I see that the email is coming as from "root". If this is his userid on
Wikipedia, there is possibility for confusion as to the powers of this
account.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org


from_name: Andrew Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] blanket reverts

body:
Hi All,

I guess that as the person doing most of the reverting I should say
something about my actions. I put this on KF's talk page after he/she asked
why I was reverting changes made by 24.130.213.242;

-------------------
Hi KF,
I'm certain that User:24.130.213.242 is User:Michael. It's an IP address
he's used before (look at the contributions), they edited 1991 in music and
then 2 minutes later User:Michael/Crass did the same and the edits are on
Michael's pet subjects. The IP has just been banned, see Vandalism in
progress. The issue of what to do with Michael's contributions has been
debated at length and I'm sure will continue to be, I'm in the revert on
sight camp. Not wanting to sound too self-important, with my finals fast
approaching, I can't afford to spend time cross-checking everything Michael
adds with other sites on the internet before deciding whether or not it is
accurate. He has a history of adding incorrect information and I hate the
thought of leaving incorrect information on here. So, for me, reversion is
the only choice. Please feel free to go and revert me if you wish but please
check the information against something. Anyway, I must sleep now, have
fun -- Ams80 22:57 31 May 2003 (UTC)

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

While I was writing the above someone (I think The Anome) blocked the IP
address and things quietened down. As an example of why I feel reverting was
the right thing to do, [[The Rescuers]] was added to [[1978 in film]] which
looks completely innocuous. However, [[1977 in film]] lists The Rescuers as
being made then, The Rescuers article says 1977, IMDb says 1977, a Google
search for 'The Rescuers movie' brings up lots of 1977 and no 1978 that I
can see. So now the page history has the slightly comedic;

a.. (cur) (last) . . M 00:17 1 Jun 2003 . . JohnOwens (Reverted to last edit
by Ams80)
a.. (cur) (last) . . 00:07 1 Jun 2003 . . LittleDan (Reverted to last edit
by 24.130.213.242)
a.. (cur) (last) . . 23:20 31 May 2003 . . Ams80 (Reverted to last edit by
67.80.218.119)
a.. (cur) (last) . . 23:19 31 May 2003 . . 24.130.213.242

I've watched the Michael situation develop ever since he's been here, right
back to the days of Graham (Quercus Robur) (an infinitely more authorative
source) attempting to keep the Crass page free of Michael's rubbish, the
Crass talk page and the Crass page history are both perfect examples of
Michael's behaviour, insisting he's correct and abusing others about things
which he is demonstrably wrong about. Add to this vandalism of user pages
and many page's histories filled with filth (look at the contributions from
Michael/Crass for examples) and you have the Michael picture.

The argument against reversion on sight seems to me to be mainly that
there's no point in removing valid information and for the vast, vast
majority of users I would agree with that. I personally feel that it is more
important for the project that the information we have is factual, I would
much rather lower the amount of information we have by removing Michael's
additions than leave the site growing in the knowledge that a proportion of
what Michael adds is incorrect. The suggestion to me that    "If you don't
have any time to check the accuracy of Michael's edits, perhaps you
shouldn't revert his edits at all." I completely reject, if Quercus and Zoe
and Camembert and John Owens and Dante and countless others had done just
this then there would be a lot of pages in worse states than they are now.

For a while there was a concerted effort to be nice to Michael and to check
everything he did, leave the good and remove the bad. In my opinion this
just said to Michael that he could crash around writing whatever the hell he
liked, swearing at others, abusing others, vandalising user pages, insisting
he was right about everything and people would go around tidying up after
him and being nice to him. I really do not think that that is an effective
way to do things. Why, if I want to keep this place accurate, should I trawl
the internet looking for obscure information about bands and films that I
have no interest in?

Perhaps I should be a little more explicit. I would like Michael to leave
the project, I think he has outstayed his welcome and I trust nothing that
he writes. Unless a definite policy is made regarding what to do with
Michael's edits is made, or unless Jimmy Wales tells me not to, I am going
to continue reverting Michael's contributions without discussion with him.
In the hour I spent with Michael last night I also did an hour of revision,
spending a few minutes in total pressing refresh on his contibutions page
and reverting anything new. Following him around checking all his additions
would have meant not revising and wasting hours of my time. If someone would
like to assure me that they will check each and every fact that Michael adds
then I will happily just leave a note on that person's talk page every time
Michael shows up and let them deal with it. And I don't mean just looking at
the addition and checking the spelling and that there's no swearing in it,
each and every fact about bands and films from the 70s and 80s need checking
and I think few of us are expert enough to be able to do this without
spending time checking with another reference.

Michael spent between two and two and a half hours editing yesterday and
apart from a few reversions un-reverted by other users Michael's
contributions sum to nothing (apart from having got to swear a lot at others
and telling them he would rape them if they reverted his additions).
Personally I hope that he will get bored, if I was putting in hours of
effort every day, all of which got removed I would eventually stop. His
latest additions form User:Administrator only lasted 10 minutes before he
stopped (with everything being reverted), perhaps he is getting bored, on
the ohter hand this is Michael who appears almost impossible to
psychoanalyze.

Sorry that this has turned into a bit of a rant, I just don't have much
sympathy for Michael right now. I also haven't really responded to
Kingturtle yet, I admit that while I was reverting Mchael's anonymous
additions it wouldn't have been clear to some why or what I was doing. I'm
not really sure of what the best thing to do would have been regarding
informing others. A note on my own talk page perhaps? I guess it's easier
when he's signed in as then we can link the user name to Michael/ban or
something. If someone has a good idea for what to do I will happily do that
in the future.

Anyway, have good days,

Andrew (Ams80)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Oliver Brown" <oliver at kingturtle.com>
To: <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 12:29 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] blanket reverts

> pages that are blanked for reasons regarding banned users should be marked
> as such. please make it very clear to the other users why you are doing
> it. -kingturtle
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Axel Boldt

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Fair use

body:
--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
> Marco Krohn wrote, quoting Axel Boldt:
> > "Illustrating an article by adding a photo creates a derivative
> > work, therefore the whole has to be put under GFDL, therefore it
> > cannot be fair use material (or anything besides public domain
> > or GFDL)."
>
> This is not valid reasoning.  If accurate, then we can't even quote
> from copyrighted sources, not even one sentence of quotation, because
> all such use is done under a "fair use" doctrine.

You only point out an undesirable consequence of my reasoning, but not
why it is invalid.

Axel

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] JTDirl sysop issue

body:
Toby Bartels wrote:

>>On a side note, even if it WAS rude, if ever being rude was a valid reason
>>to deny someone sysop status, then a WHOLE bunch of sysops are in SERIOUS
>>trouble. lol (laughing out loud, remember? You DID go read [[leet]], didn't
>>you?)
>>
>
>Yes, I checked to see if it had any indication
>why "lol" always means "laughing out loud", never "lots of luck",
>even in a post that makes much more sense the latter way.
>As it turns out, [[Leet]] says nothing about "lol" at all.
>
>In your case, however, I agree that it means "laughing out loud".
>^_^
>
The [[Leet]] article didn't make much sense to me at all, but I agree
that I found no reference to "lol" in it..

An abbreviation means exactly what the user intended it to mean.

>`When _I_ use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful
>tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor
>less.'
>
JTDirl has not yet said what he intended, but the context (immediately
before the signature) does suggest a meaning more akin to "lots of luck".

Ec


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Fair use

body:
Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen wrote:

>On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>>My inclination would be to use borderline material, with an appropriate
>>warning that we will happily remove on request from a properly
>>identified owner.
>>
>
>It's harder to remove material from a printed edition of Wikipedia. This means
>any printed version must cut away a degree of the content.
>
>This makes the problem with a compromise clearer: If we flag all "fair use"
>images and accept them, they will discourage the hunt for non-copyrighted
>similar material - the article already has a picture. (IMO, of course.)
>
A printed edition (or even a CD edition) has been frequently mentioned
on people's wish lists.  Until people realistically start talking about
how to fund such an undertaking, I have a hard time considering the idea
as anything more than a pipe-dream.

Flagging fair use images is fine, as would flagging all possibly
copyright impaired contributions where the situation is uncertain.  In a
printed edition, the flagged material could then be easily excluded.

Coding boxes :-)   could work very well for that.

Ec


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Fair use

body:
--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> Axel-
> > Check out for example the excellent collection of portrait
> > photographs donated to the Library of Congress.
>
> Which one specifically?

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/vvhtml/vvhome.html

> Actually, what we need is probably a transfer of the copyright to us,
> or at the very least a contract that allows unlimited sublicensing.

No, the precise thing we need is that the copyright holder releases the
picture under GFDL. They retain all rights, including the right,
protected under GFDL, to be listed as author in perpetuity.

And if the New York Times doesn't want to put their newspaper under
GFDL, they will still have to pay the copyright holder for the right to
print the image.

> See where this kind of mentality is taking us? Copyright
> paranoia.

Speaking of rhethoric: inventing a term with a negative connotation for
a position you don't like does not advance your argument.

> I would  think that someone opposed to intellectual property
> would embrace the idea that we should defend and make use of our
> rights, instead of bowing to the pressure from copyright holders.

Yes, you might think that, and you would be wrong. In the end you end
up with a Wikipedia that is such a mess copyright-wise that the goal
"freely redistributable" becomes a farce; just another encyclopedia,
without really advancing the global situation of "intellectual
property".

> > I think Brion's suggestion of simply linking to the external site
> > containing the photograph is a win-win-win-win proposal:
>
> > * The copyright owner gets exposure
> > * Our readers get access to the educational content
> > * We are still able to burn a CD with all our material and put
> >   "GFDL" on the cover
> > * The inconvenience of the external link encourages contributors to
> >   hunt for free substitute photographs.
>
> Alas, it also has several problems:
>
> - When the website is down, the image is no longer available. Broken
> links often go unnoticed for longer periods of time because we have
> no way to  systematically check them.
> - The image is no longer embedded in the proper context. It becomes
> difficult to associate image content with image text.
> - The reader is taken away from the Wikipedia navigational structure
> to a non-HTML image page. This is bad user interface design.

All these I redefine as advantages with my fourth point above :-)

> - fair use should be kept at a minimum,

In practice, this means: "first ask for GFDL or public domain; if they
refuse, ask for special licensing; if they refuse, you most likely can
use it anyway."

Axel

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
Michael-
> An interesting way to offer advertising, would be to offer to let people
> sponsor pages.  This is done with Highways, (i.e. This section of
> highway sponsored by such and such).  I think many users would like this
> idea, and would sponsor pages they contributed heavily to, and you could
> offer packages for "advertisers" outside of the project like mentioned
> above, (using some sort of algorithm to figure out what pages are
> relevant) and then offer a price per page type thing.

Any kind of advertising will hurt our credibility as an educational
project. Once the Nupedia Foundation is set up[1], raising money should be
easy enough.

Regards,

Erik

[1] A phrase which will in future times be listed alongside similar
phrases like
"Once Duke Nukem Forever is released"
"Once fusion power becomes feasible"
"Once copyright terms are reduced to 14 years".


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Fair use

body:
--- Brion Vibber <vibber at aludra.usc.edu> wrote:

> ( ) This file is public domain (has fallen out of copyright, was
>     never copyrighted, or has been explicitly put in PD by the
author)
> ( ) This file is licensed under GFDL
> ( ) Copyright owner gives permission to reproduce for
>     non-commercial/educational purposes only
>     NOTE: [concerns over distribution, prefer free files]
> ( ) This file is used under 'fair use' claims without permission of
>     the copyright holder. NOTE: [concerns over distribution, prefer
>     free files]

My concern is this: a rational copyright holder faced with these
choices will alway choose option 4 (permission for non-commercial
distribution), thereby retaining maximal control. Yet option 4 is the
one most detrimental to Wikipedia's goals, preventing modification as
well as publication in a commercial book/CDROM version.

Axel

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com


body:
Why does everyone oppose advertizing? I it's descrete enough, it's not intrusive and doesn't lower our credibility.

Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote: Michael Becker wrote:

>An interesting way to offer advertising, would be to offer to let people
>sponsor pages. This is done with Highways, (i.e. This section of
>highway sponsored by such and such). I think many users would like this
>idea, and would sponsor pages they contributed heavily to, and you could
>offer packages for "advertisers" outside of the project like mentioned
>above, (using some sort of algorithm to figure out what pages are
>relevant) and then offer a price per page type thing.
>
sounds like the thin edge of the wedge to me.

For anything like this to be considered seriously we would first need a
responsible discussion of Wikipedia finances, and the development of a
business plan.

All ( :-) !) our present sources of funding are opposed to advertising.
Co-incidentally, I happen to agree with that position, so I'm not about
to complain against my own interests.

Ec

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

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030601/c7cbb83b/attachment.htm


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

Je Diman?o 01 Junio 2003 11:14, Daniel Ehrenberg skribis:
> Why does everyone oppose advertizing? I it's descrete enough, it's
> not intrusive and doesn't lower our credibility.

See, Dan, there *is* no such advertising. If it were sufficiently
discreet, unobtrusive, and non-credibility-lowering to not send half
our contributors away in disgust, advertisers wouldn't be willing to
pay because no one would be able to see it.

You may not remember as it was before your time, but a year or so ago
all but one or two of the Spanish Wikipedia contributors revolted and
left to build the Enciclopedia Libre because Jimbo was _considering_
putting small, tasteful, textual ad banners on the English Wikipedia
only, which anyone would be able to disable by logging in and setting
their preferences to "no ads".

So we're a little touchy on the subject. :)

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+2kQGxVlOmwh1xjgRAiNaAJ0azHJhHDKHMn5xdNUVOUcISPqQzwCbBLLj
YuW/Gub72hRytXSHU1NUaA8=
=gfyA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
If I'm in debt $5, then I can afford it! In fact, I'll be 50 cents in the black after buying it.

Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:Tannin wrote in part:

>This is our premium package and naturally it's a little more expensive
>than inferior packages from our competitors, but we are sure that you
>will agree it's worth it. Because Wikipedia is an equal opportunity
>media outlet and does not discriminate against any social group, we
>adjust our rates to suit your capacity to pay. For the High Visibility
>Premium Package, we charge just 110% of however much you have.

I have absolutely no money whatsoever.
(Math note: 110% * $0 = $0.)

Just be glad that I'm not in debt!

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

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030601/10445068/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: blanket reverts

body:
well that doesn't prohibit unrevereting of his good edits, does it?
--LittleDan

Tim Starling <ts4294967296 at hotmail.com> wrote:

"Daniel Ehrenberg"

wrote in message news:20030531230332.77432.qmail at web41809.mail.yahoo.com...
> I don't think the blanket reverting efforts directed
> at Michael are good. I went through the contrabutions
> of 24.130.213.24x (those of you reverting know who I'm
> talking about) and many, if not most, of his edits
> were useful and even factual. I will be un-reverting
> all of his useful edits, but only after fact checking.
> --LittleDan

Do not un-revert. Jimmy Wales made it quite clear what he expects us to do
about Michael, in a message to this list only yesterday (in my time zone).
Here's what he said:

"Jimmy Wales" wrote in
message news:20030530183331.C27690 at joey.bomis.com...
> Dante Alighieri wrote:
> > This is an open request, but it is specifically aimed at Jimbo. Can we
have
> > a clear and definitive answer on Michael and his pseudonyms and
his/their
> > ban status?
>
> Michael and all his derivatives are banned from Wikipedia. Sysops and
> developers can take whatever steps are necessary to make this
> technologically effective.
>
> > Also, can this be posted on the Wikipedia so that it can be
> > easily linked to?
>
> I assume this email message, via the archvies, will be sufficient.
>
> > The current situation requires that we direct people to
> > Michael's ban talk page and that they then link to the No-Fx page and
the
> > Weezer pages. I am, as are others, spending too much time defending our
> > actions when we delete Michael's garbage. Thanks.
>
> He's banned, and if he wants to be unbanned, he can email me for a
> friendly chat, or join the mailing list to state his case.
>
> --Jimbo

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

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030601/1de9155b/attachment.htm


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Fair use

body:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:

>On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 09:13:08AM -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>>Erik Moeller wrote:
>>
>>>What I do suggest is that we use common sense to determine the few cases
>>>where we think fair use law is applicable, instead of simply ignoring
>>>these few loopholes in the current restrictive copyright code. I would
>>>think that someone opposed to intellectual property would embrace the idea
>>>that we should defend and make use of our rights, instead of bowing to the
>>>pressure from copyright holders.
>>>
>>My inclination would be to use borderline material, with an appropriate
>>warning that we will happily remove on request from a properly
>>identified owner.
>>
>
>When whole Wikipedia will be included in Linux distros, distributed on CDs,
>and articles from Wikipedia will be used by hundreds of books and magazines
>and thousands of web sites, how are you going to do that ?
>We'd better play safe here.
>
How others use the material is their problem, and their risk.  We
shouldn't have to baby-sit them.  Whatever license or copyrights are
applied to Wikipedia reflects a collective comfort level.  The user is
still responsible for his own due-dilligence, no matter how conservative
we are on the matter.

>Anything that doesn't allow Debian and other distros distribute Wikipedia
>in their main section is not acceptable. (That means DFSG and OSI
>compatibility, and "fair use" is clearly incompatible with these rules,
>btw. invariant sections/front and back covers etc. of GFDL are also
>incompatible with DFSG, negotiations with FSF are in process now to fix
>that problem with GFDL, plain GFDL is DFSG-compatible)
>
At some point along the way I get lost in the subtle distinctions that
separate this alphabet soup of licenses.  I'm sure that the average
contributor doesn't waste much time on it either.  Similarly, when we
install a new piece of software, how many of us really read and
understand the legalese bafflegab of licences.  We just click on yes,
because if we don't the program won't work.  When we contribute to
Wikipedia we agree to the principle that we want our writing to be
generally available to the public to use as it sees fit, and that we are
sharing it with like-minded individuals.  We don't worry about the
contortions of armchair lawyers.

The practical principle that it is easier to get forgiveness than to get
permission goes a long way as long as it is applied with a level of
common sense whereby we restrain ourselves from flagrant abuse.  The
rule of law is a good thing, but too much law is simply ignored.

Ec


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Fair use

body:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:

>
>In Poland such exceptions apply only to research and, to lesser extend,
>to education. Wikipedia is neither one or another.
>
Are you suggesting that Wikipedia is not educational?  Being educational
is one of the pillars that helps to establish fair use.  Education is
not limited to the activities of recognized institutions, but has a much
broader meaning.

Ec


body:
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:

> If I'm in debt $5, then I can afford it! In fact, I'll be 50 cents in
> the black after buying it.
>
This seems to be the philosophical essence of deficit financing!

Ec