subject: [Wikitech-l] Clarification: Single Sign-On

body:
I heard three different views on SSO wrt MediaWiki/WikiPedia so far:

1) The different Wikipedia sites (e.g. en.wikipedia.org and
de.wikipedia.org) should require a user only to log on once. Once
logged on the user should be known across those Wikipedia sites (and
only those).

2) A MediaWiki installation (e.g. in an enterprise) would like the
MediaWiki user management subsystem to participate in an SSO
environment (e.g. an enterprise single-sign-on system).
Auth_Plugin.php and various LDAP projects seem to have made some
headway there.

3) A Wikipedia user (and any MediaWiki user) should be able to "bring
their own" identity, which MediaWiki software should recognize. The
advantage of this is that it includes the previous two items as
special cases -- and because there's nothing special about Mediawiki
with respect to logins: every website has that problem, and would
like the problem to go away.

I'm interested in #3, specifically using URL-based personal digital
identities (such as the URL of their blog). How would one practically
go about doing this? [I'm new to how the wikipedia software projects
typically work out]

Some background is here:
     http://cis-berkman.editme.com/
     http://openid.net/
     http://lid.netmesh.org/wiki/Main_Page

Thank you,

Johannes Ernst

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


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Snowspinner

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

body:
On Oct 5, 2005, at 12:45 PM, Carbonite wrote:

>  Overall, that's still a pretty strong group of candidates.
>

I can think of two names on that list that would cause major
controversy, including one who routinely accuses the arbcom of
cronyism and corruption.

-Snowspinner


from_name: steve v

body:
--- Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:

> Kelly Martin wrote:
> > A few Arbitration Assistants would not be remiss,
> either.
> >
> > Kelly
>
> I really like this idea. It seems to work pretty
> well in the U.S.
> courts: The higher court would simply refuse to hear
> the appealed case
> unless they think something went /procedurally/
> wrong in the lower
> court. This would give us near-infinite scalability
> while still
> maintaining accountability for the higher "judges"
> if you will. There
> aren't really any drawbacks either. I would be in
> favor of creating a
> proposed policy to this end.

I guess I misunderstood Kelly's statement. A
tiered-court idea is exactly whats called for - as
opposed to just beefing up the size.

SV

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


from_name: Phil Boswell

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

body:
I have just discovered that a bunch of these have been obliterated as an
unfortunate side-effect of an entirely right-minded drive to delete orphan
talk pages.

The particular page which I stumbled across is
[[Talk:Constitutional_Charter_of_Serbia_and_Montenegro/Delete]] which can be
viewed here (if you have the right credentials :-):
*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Talk:Constitutional_Charter_of_Serbia_and_Montenegro/Delete

I understand that there is another project currently underway, moving the
old VFD discussions to AFD. Should these even older discussions be treated
in a similar fashion?
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: Fl Celloguy

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

body:
Speaking of the ArbCom elections, does anyone know who will be organizing
this year's election? I have contacted Uninvited Company, Danny, and Elain,
who were all organizers of last year's election. UC has indicated that he
will not be organizing it this year, but Danny and Elain have not responded
yet (and they're not that regular on en). I would like to know this for our
Signpost series, if anyone has any idea. (Bit of promo here: in case you
haven't noticed yet, the Wikipedia Signpost (WP:SIGN) is doing a series on
the upcoming elections. Check it out today!)

Thanks very much.

Flcelloguy
>From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee?
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963


from_name: Justin Cormack

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

body:
On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 14:10 +0200, BJ?rn Lindqvist wrote:
> I heard one that the total sum of all human knowledge has doubled very
> second year for the past few decades. As in: The scientists doing
> research between 2003 - 2005 learned more things than everything they
> knew in the beginning of 2003. So if we want to keep Wikipedia's
> coverage as broad and deep as it is today, the number of articles have
> to double every other year.

{{unverified}} - reference please. Sounds implausible to me. And
research isnt about "things" in general.

The steady state growth once we have caught up on the backlog of stuff
that we know now should be tehre is an interesting question. Also
whether people will become less interested in contributing as more is
filled in.


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Rob Lanphier

body:
Hi Johannes,

I'm not part of the core development team (in fact, I've only submitted
a couple relatively insignificant patches).  However, this is an issue
I've been tracking pretty closely.  Nevertheless, don't take this as
anything other than as the very possibly incorrect observations of a
fringe participant.

The SSO activity has been somewhat dormant for a couple months now, but
is probably can be resurrected if someone (you?) volunteers to shepherd
the effort.  My understanding is that Brion would like to implement an
AuthPlugin for SSO.  OpenID/LID/etc would be a probably be a phase two
sorta thing; phase one is reserved for intra-Wikimedia SSO.

If someone (you?) were to say, implement a LID server and client for
MediaWiki, that would give it a big head start over other potential
solutions.  It wouldn't be the simplest solution to intra-Wikimedia SSO,
but it would work, assuming that the LID libraries are mature enough to
deal with Wikimedia's demands.  If such a solution were to get
substantial testing outside of the Wikimedia realm of servers, that
would be a big argument for the maturity of the solution.

I myself was working on this type of thing a lot more a couple of months
ago, but put that work on hold to work on a MediaWiki election plugin
I'm close to releasing.  I'll eventually want to return to auth work,
but don't see that happening in the next month or two.

Rob

On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 12:55 -0700, Johannes Ernst wrote:
> I heard three different views on SSO wrt MediaWiki/WikiPedia so far:
>
> 1) The different Wikipedia sites (e.g. en.wikipedia.org and
> de.wikipedia.org) should require a user only to log on once. Once
> logged on the user should be known across those Wikipedia sites (and
> only those).
>
> 2) A MediaWiki installation (e.g. in an enterprise) would like the
> MediaWiki user management subsystem to participate in an SSO
> environment (e.g. an enterprise single-sign-on system).
> Auth_Plugin.php and various LDAP projects seem to have made some
> headway there.
>
> 3) A Wikipedia user (and any MediaWiki user) should be able to "bring
> their own" identity, which MediaWiki software should recognize. The
> advantage of this is that it includes the previous two items as
> special cases -- and because there's nothing special about Mediawiki
> with respect to logins: every website has that problem, and would
> like the problem to go away.
>
> I'm interested in #3, specifically using URL-based personal digital
> identities (such as the URL of their blog). How would one practically
> go about doing this? [I'm new to how the wikipedia software projects
> typically work out]
>
> Some background is here:
>      http://cis-berkman.editme.com/
>      http://openid.net/
>      http://lid.netmesh.org/wiki/Main_Page
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
>
> Johannes Ernst
>
>   http://netmesh.info/jernst
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


from_name: Andrew Gray

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

body:
On 05/10/05, BJ?rn Lindqvist <bjourne at gmail.com> wrote:
> I heard one that the total sum of all human knowledge has doubled very
> second year for the past few decades. As in: The scientists doing
> research between 2003 - 2005 learned more things than everything they
> knew in the beginning of 2003. So if we want to keep Wikipedia's
> coverage as broad and deep as it is today, the number of articles have
> to double every other year.

Doubling every other year is a 40% year-on-year increase. According to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm en.wiki
seems to have been increasing article count at circa 6% per month for
much of the year, assuming it hasn't significantly changed recently.
6% per month constant growth is - roughly - 100% year-on-year
increase. By wordcount, it was going up... hmm, let's call it 7.5% and
be conservative. That's roughly a 140% increase year-on-year.

At current rates, then, we're growing much faster than scientific
knowledge is! That said, I have my doubts over the figure - it sounds
far too hard to quantify, and a little too neat to be true. Maybe it's
quantifying raw data generation? That I could well believe. (Did I
ever point this list to the video of Lessig's talk at Fermilab? I must
dig up my notes on it)

Mind you, it's a pretty good metric - doubling over two years is
definitely the kind of thing we'd want a good healthy project to be
doing. If you want to use this metric in future, a handy rule of thumb
is that any wiki which grows at *3% or more* a month, in your
favourite way of counting "size", will a little more than double over
two years. Feel free to use this to encourage people...

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


from_name: Amruta Lonkar

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

body:
I will try the last possibility i guess. That seems to be the easiest to me
right now. And also am doing these changes on a local wiki so i guess it
should be fine.

Thanks a lot!. Will try it out.

Amruta

Quoting Ashar Voultoiz <hashar at altern.org>:

> Amruta Lonkar wrote:
> > I have written a page in extensions, that will enable a user to add
> reference
> > information. However now i want to call this page in such a way that when a
> > user is writing a new article at that time he can click on either a button
> > like the ones located above the existing text editor which will call that
> > page. I am trying to do this on my local wiki. Does anybody know how this
> can
> > be done?. Does anybody know what might be any other way to do it
>
> Hello,
>
> Three possibilities:
>
> 1/ The text editor buttons are in a <div id='toolbar'> so you can
> probably make a javascript that add new buttons.
>
> -> might be a bit of troubles if you dont know javascript (like me)
>
>
> 2/ We could also add a hook so extensions can add new buttons easily
> (read without javascript hacking).
>
> -> need a developer to add hooks and make them available in next 1.5.
> But it is in Release Candidate status and I dont think we add any new
> features in that branch. Might be for 1.6 (march-april 2006?).
>
>
> 3/ You can hack the source code: the function that build the editing
> toolbar is in ./include/EditPage.php , method getEditToolbar() .
>
> -> it is the fastest way for you, but you will have to keep a patch of
> your changes for futures upgrades.
>
>
> Maybe Avar can add the hooks, I am sure he likes them :p
>
> cheers,
>
> --
> Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
> http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/
> IM: hashar at jabber.org  ICQ: 15325080
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

--
Amruta


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Vincent "Bentong" S. Isles

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Kinaray-a wikipedia request

body:
Hi,

I would like to clarify why Kinaray-a has been removed
from the requests for new languages. I don't speak
Kinaray-a myself, but I am a Filipino, and our group
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/philwiki> has been
trying to solicit support for the creation of the said
Wikipedia.

I am moving it again in the new requests. Please wait
for us to gather enough support before it is
transferred again to no support. Thanks.

--[[ceb:User:Bentong Isles]]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vincent "Bentong" S. Isles   Chemistry & Physics Teacher
bentong_isles at yahoo.com      http://bentong.topcities.com
         56-C San Miguel St. Cebu City, Philippines
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     Unsa ang tinuod nga pagkamakinasodnon?  Kini mao ang
pagdapig sa budaya [culture] batok sa mga buot mopasipala
niini, langyaw man kun isigka-Pilipino.
           Mabuhi ang pinulongang Sinugboanon!
      SCRAP THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL LANGUAGE POLICY!
          STOP THE FORCED LEARNING OF TAGALOG!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Abag sa Sinugboanong Wikipedya | http://ceb.wikipedia.org

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


from_name: BJörn Lindqvist

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

body:
I heard one that the total sum of all human knowledge has doubled very
second year for the past few decades. As in: The scientists doing
research between 2003 - 2005 learned more things than everything they
knew in the beginning of 2003. So if we want to keep Wikipedia's
coverage as broad and deep as it is today, the number of articles have
to double every other year.

--
mvh Bj?rn


from_name: Johannes Ernst

body:
Hi Rob,

> The SSO activity has been somewhat dormant for a couple months now,
> but
> is probably can be resurrected if someone (you?) volunteers to
> shepherd
> the effort.

As it turns out, Dan Libby of videntity.org just 20 minutes ago
published a MediaWiki patch
to allow for OpenID-based SSO.

http://wiki.www.videntity.org/wiki/MediaWiki_OpenID_Patch

> If someone (you?) were to say, implement a LID server and client for
> MediaWiki, that would give it a big head start over other potential
> solutions.

You are probably right, but from my perspective, this isn't a matter
of a "land grab" before "the other guy" gets too much market share
with their protocol, whatever it may be ;-) [I might be exaggerating
your point here ...]

In my mind, the question is "what can we do to reduce the number of
usernames and passwords that users have to use, how can be increase
user convenience, how can we reduce spam and other bad stuff, how can
we build cool new social stuff" on top of what hopefully will be a
globally interoperable, privacy-protected, user-controlled identity
infrastructure that pretty much everybody can buy into. We're trying
to proactively do our part here ...

>   It wouldn't be the simplest solution to intra-Wikimedia SSO,
> but it would work, assuming that the LID libraries are mature
> enough to
> deal with Wikimedia's demands.  If such a solution were to get
> substantial testing outside of the Wikimedia realm of servers, that
> would be a big argument for the maturity of the solution.
>

You are making a good point, and this is one of the reasons I posted
to the list here -- how would one get any of this deployed with
acceptably low risk to the operation of wikipedia? And for my own
better understanding: how has that been done in the past by this
project?

Cheers,

Johannes Ernst

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


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

body:
Oh, dont be so absolutist. Youve been here long enough
to remember how thin support for 3RR originally was
(and for good reason). If the rule is infallible, what
actually confirms this --ie. reviews and corrects the
rules when they are not? I cant go around filing
Arbcom cases for every sysop whom I think is acting
like a jerk in enforcing "da rulz." (Rather, it seems
quite natural to emulate them ;).

This is not to say that I want to be be a jerk to
people, but I am saying that if the rule is fucked
people are going to get fucked too. FYI thats a
problem, and one which may outweight the value of
keeping any one article from being trashed by reverts.

Since when is the energy of contributors of less value
than a controversial rule --one which can easily be
substituted by a better protection process? Or better
yet: one which, if it can be the basis for a block,
should be known well enough to be appropriately
enforced (all guilty parties) in the first place?

SV

--- Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:

> You know, I might think this was a problem if it
> weren't for the fact
> that a blind revert war is never an acceptable way
> to deal with any
> kind of content dispute _whatsoever_. If you
> reverted a content change
> more than 3 times in 24 hours, you aren't editing
> the way you're
> supposed to be. Period. If someone is not blocking
> fairly, that is
> their fault, not the fault of the rule.

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


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Will Wikipedia Swallow Google?

body:
Not having seen the column, I can only guess, but if the WP article
on X invariably appears at the top of a search for "X", then no doubt
some people will get in the habit of starting their searches at
wikipedia.org instead of google.com. However, in practice this only
works for general information searches, not shopping for products or
digging up dirt on (heh-heh) non-notable people, so Google's business
is hardly imperiled.

Stan

Fred Bauder wrote:

> We are destined for the top ten. However as we show no ambition to
> serve as a general search engine Google will not be "swallowed".
>
> Fred
>
>
> On Oct 5, 2005, at 2:27 PM, charles matthews wrote:
>
>> Title of a column in today's London Independent, by technology
>> correspondent Charles Arthur.  Oh, BTW, it's favourable to WP.
>>
>> Charles
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Afd nominations

body:
On 10/5/05, Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
>
>
> And if this thread was Godwinized, then who lost? The Encyclopedists
> or the Contributors?
>
> Godwin's Law is not, alas, a zero sum game, it's a rough measure of
entropy in internet discussions.


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
Many folks who run for arbitrator, and are elected, fail to work out,
as being a Wikipedia Arbitrator involves very tedious and time
consuming research into the edits made by the parties. I suggest that
all administrators be considered potential arbitrators. Those among
the administrators who are willing and able to do the work involved
should, by demonstration of their work, assume the role.

I suggest that any administrator should be able to "accept" an
arbitration and then participate in resolving it.

Fred

On Oct 5, 2005, at 9:22 AM, DF wrote:

> I posted this question at the Village Pump last night,
> but it hasn't got much response (perhaps because most
> everyone was asleep at the time I wrote it).
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%
> 29#How_many_Arbitrators_should_we_have.3F
>
> The crux of my point is that the number of active
> editors in Wikipedia has grown nearly 10 fold since
> ArbCom was created 2 years ago, while the number of
> Arbitrators has remained constant at 12.
>
> Perhaps this just means we should expand the pool of
> Arbitrators and elect 20 or 30 this time around as
> some people had proposed (though one might have
> trouble finding enough people to run).
>
> As an alternative, I suggested moving to a system more
> like Admins / Bureaucrats where we continually approve
> trusted members of the community to serve in this role
> and allow the pool to grow as needed to keep up with
> Wikipedia's growth.  A pool of 50-100 trusted
> community members, working in groups of 10-15, could
> make short work of the backlog generally seen at
> RFArb.
>
> -DF
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Ryan Delaney

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

Kelly Martin wrote:

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

I really like this idea. It seems to work pretty well in the U.S.
courts: The higher court would simply refuse to hear the appealed case
unless they think something went /procedurally/ wrong in the lower
court. This would give us near-infinite scalability while still
maintaining accountability for the higher "judges" if you will. There
aren't really any drawbacks either. I would be in favor of creating a
proposed policy to this end.

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

iD8DBQFDREel6MKb8lYmCtcRAjcKAJ9KWWIQreBKvFQpLicTogIUZnpp8ACgq6y3
ta8/PH46VZZKtL9JD7XtNiI=
=0+Y+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
As I previously suggested, we need to run arbitrators through the
test of whether they are willing and able to do the work (and take
the pressure). I suggest a wide funnel collecting potential
arbitrators and easy removal of those who try but fail (measuring
failure by actual participation).

Fred

On Oct 5, 2005, at 9:28 AM, Tony Sidaway wrote:

> Arbitration has justly been called the worst job on Wikipedia. Last
> year I
> seem to recall that only a couple of score of people ran for
> arbcom, and a
> number of those were plainly unsuitable candidates. I just don't
> think we'd
> be able to sustain more than say 20 arbitrators. It may be worth a
> try,
> though.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
My feeling is that we should require at least 5 arbitrators to accept
a case and those who accepted the case would be responsible for
deciding it.

Fred

On Oct 5, 2005, at 9:43 AM, Carbonite wrote:

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


body:
The problem with this is that Jimbo, genius that he is, does not
actively edit and has very limited information to base his choices on.

Fred

On Oct 5, 2005, at 12:58 PM, Ryan Delaney wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Carbonite wrote:
>
>
>> We could state that the top N candidates will be elected to the
>> ArbCom,
>> provided they receive at least X% support. The values of N and X
>> would need
>> to be discussed and/or simply decided by Jimbo. If fewer than N
>> candidates
>> have X% support, the ArbCom is smaller than desired, but would almost
>> certainly be larger than its current size.
>> Carbonite
>>
>
> Alternatively, we could just let Jimbo go down the list and pick how
> many arbitrators he wants. He would have to start at the top and work
> his way down, but he gets to decide when to stop. I would be more
> happy with that system, because it would be a reasonable balance of
> power between him and the commoners (he couldn't just pick his buddies
> to sit on arbcom) but it would prevent situations where, say, one year
> not a lot of people run for ArbCom so Plautus Satire gets elected by
> default.
>
> - - Ryan
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFDRCJR6MKb8lYmCtcRAkfeAJ9DsWX8ZG8n/4cwuZpgLFfkkW5y0ACfRZFo
> bo2BtfxJnnudFyh9oGH2T/A=
> =tSfm
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
One of the things which would greatly  improve  functioning and
retention of arbitrators is effective advocates who would select and
present evidence which illustrated the contentions of the parties. As
it is now the arbitrators themselves are forced to view the
ridiculous amounts of irrelevant crap which the parties advance as
"evidence" and try to figure out on their own what is going on.

Fred

On Oct 5, 2005, at 11:25 AM, Kelly Martin wrote:

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


body:
On Oct 5, 2005, at 2:27 PM, charles matthews wrote:

> Title of a column in today's London Independent, by technology
> correspondent Charles Arthur.  Oh, BTW, it's favourable to WP.
>
> Charles
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
We are destined for the top ten. However as we show no ambition to
serve as a general search engine Google will not be "swallowed".

Fred

On Oct 5, 2005, at 2:27 PM, charles matthews wrote:

> Title of a column in today's London Independent, by technology
> correspondent Charles Arthur.  Oh, BTW, it's favourable to WP.
>
> Charles
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
I encourage anyone to run, but to not be surprised if the actual work
is both confusing and tedious. When you dig into the diffs, it often
takes some mulling over to figure out what is going on. An
appropriate remedy, not too much, not too little is another matter,
then there is the process of arriving at agreement among arbitrators.

Fred

On Oct 5, 2005, at 3:05 PM, Phroziac wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> As I previously suggested, we need to run arbitrators through the
>> test
>> of whether they are willing and able to do the work (and take  the
>> pressure). I suggest a wide funnel collecting potential
>> arbitrators and
>> easy removal of those who try but fail (measuring  failure by actual
>> participation).
>>
>> Fred
>>
> Want a guineau pig for a test of that? Sounds great to me, and I'm
> interested in running for arbcom. I think. I'm not really sure of
> anything.
>
>
> - --
> Phroziac                    |   /"\
> Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
> OpenPGP key ID: 0xC2AF5417  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
> http://tinyurl.com/anya2    |   / \
> (Computer clock currently thinks it should be set to UTC.)
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFDREARVLzO3sKvVBcRAkzlAJ46JdNPcSBVljphihYPf/+fKd//5QCfSAzu
> 9K8OhSl3Z9czcVpnIIxrbLc=
> =PDgH
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


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

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

steve v wrote:

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

You know, I might think this was a problem if it weren't for the fact
that a blind revert war is never an acceptable way to deal with any
kind of content dispute _whatsoever_. If you reverted a content change
more than 3 times in 24 hours, you aren't editing the way you're
supposed to be. Period. If someone is not blocking fairly, that is
their fault, not the fault of the rule.

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

iD8DBQFDRFF56MKb8lYmCtcRAkItAJ0cKtCf5NM63w1ti7l0m+mtrOT0bwCfaF5V
ET4YVksqD5xkXIsWS1rZxsM=
=BxI2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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

body:
"Tony Sidaway" <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote in
message news:605709b90510031651m279f3052h91646a05ac8b8d40 at mail.gmail.com...
[snip]
> A discussion is now taking place on Wikipedia Votes for undeletion. An
> article about a developing games forum website was deleted a few months
> ago
> on the grounds that it was "crystal ball gazing". Now the website is up
> and
> running and someone asks for the article, with some 40 edits by to be
> deleted. People are sitting on VFU right now and seriously arguing that it
> should be kept deleted because "at the time, the VfD discussion was valid.
> That beggars belief.

Some choice quotes (** is me):

* Valid VfD - "organic growth"? (Nice phrase) Just because a site added some
content doesn't automatically change its notability.
** actually the "organic growth" refers to the article, not to the
subject...

* The fact that the site now might pass AfD does not invalidate the previous
AfD...If an identical article were re-created it could validly be speedied.
If a new and substantially different article were to be written about this
topic, it could not be deleted without another AfD, and we can't prevent and
article being written for the reason given above. (Although I wish with all
my heart we could.)

* valid AfD. If you have significant new information, create a new article.
**This ignoring the already-established problem that the article has been
protected on a blank because of vandalism...

* Keep Deleted. I thought I had already voted on this one.

One interesting argument on the original VFD was that no article about a
website can be verified through a link to the website itself. The specific
datum quoted was "number of users". One would be intrigued as to how many
websites it would be possible to determine the number of users through any
source **other** than the website itself? One would also be intrigued as to
how many websites have their existence verified through peer-reviewed
published papers as suggested in the same discussion...
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: Dan Libby

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki OpenID patch

body:
Hi all, I've created a patch for OpenID login to MediaWiki. ( 1.4.10 )

Details here:
http://wiki.www.videntity.org/wiki/MediaWiki_OpenID_Patch

cheers!

Dan Libby


from_name: Ray Saintonge

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

body:
Mark Williamson wrote:

>It seems a bit -- forgive me -- daft to use the number of Google hits
>for non-English WPs... how could that possibly be relevant?
>
>
That would be right if the number of Google hits were the only metric.
If it is only one of several metrics the resulting meta-analysis will be
drawn toward the mean.  Another possibility is to assign a normalizing
factor to each language to account for the relative frequency of that
language.

Ec


from_name: DF

body:
On 10/5/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>On 10/5/05, Phroziac <phroziac at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Where and how do you run?
>
> Nominations have not yet opened. When they do thry >
will be hard to miss.

Well I don't know about what has officially opened,
but there are already 7 people offering statements
about why they would be a good candidate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2005/Candidate_statements

-DF


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

Fred Bauder wrote:

> One of the things which would greatly improve functioning and
> retention of arbitrators is effective advocates who would select
> and present evidence which illustrated the contentions of the
> parties. As it is now the arbitrators themselves are forced to
> view the ridiculous amounts of irrelevant crap which the parties
> advance as "evidence" and try to figure out on their own what is
> going on.
>
All right, but that doesn't speak to the suggestion Kelly was making.
Whether you think we need "advocates" or not, the idea on the table is
a tiered court system to replace the single court with original
jurisdiction that we have now. Rather than ArbCom having original
jurisdiction in various cases, there would be several committees -- or
maybe even courts judged by a single editor -- that would have
original jurisdiction in all arbitration cases. ArbCom would only have
juridsiction to hear cases by appeal.

Dividing the work in this way would mean you could add to the number
of arbitrators without too much risk, because if someone makes insane
decisions, "senior arbitrators" on ArbCom would still have the
opportunity to review them. It would also reduce the work load, since
ArbCom would have the decision by the arbitrator to go on, so maybe
they would agree with his or her reasoning but think the punishment
was too harsh and shorten it -- this would require one, maybe two
votes, rather than months of combing through evidence. Alternatively
they could reject the appeal all together and let the previous
decision stand.

This suggestion seems to solve the scalability problems while
preserving final authority in the hands of a few trusted,
community-appointed editors.

Fred Bauder wrote:

> The problem with this is that Jimbo, genius that he is, does not
> actively edit and has very limited information to base his choices
> on.
>
> Fred
>
> On Oct 5, 2005, at 12:58 PM, Ryan Delaney wrote:
>

That didn't stop him from appointing arbitrators last time.

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

iD8DBQFDRFxG6MKb8lYmCtcRAvPfAJ9lpDTVE//R40BzcZpCg23XusKW6QCgmuCv
ZB+XriM88rc6l8WYIl7l3MU=
=1RuN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
On 10/5/05, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> * valid AfD. If you have significant new information, create a new
> article.
> **This ignoring the already-established problem that the article has been
> protected on a blank because of vandalism...

I decided to take this advice, which I thought was fair comment, and create
a new article. This was speedied several times by people who repeatedly
claimed falsely that the article, the product of my own mind, was a
recreation. I afd'd it and it looked like it was headed for deletion (fair
enough) but then someone prematurely closed the AfD and speedied it. I gave
up.

Finally someone asked for history undeletion so I performed this task (which
doesn't require a VFU debate). I haven't checked today, but I wouldn't put
it past some over-zealous sysop to delete even that.

It's getting beyond a joke.

> One interesting argument on the original VFD was that no article about a
> website can be verified through a link to the website itself. The specific
> datum quoted was "number of users".

Well obviously the website can be verified--just open telnet to port 80 and
send a http head command, and if you get a valid http response there's a
website.

The estimated number of users can be attributed, so that the reader knows
that it is self-reported. Or (my preference) it can be omitted as not really
relevant.

I do find a lot of these "keep deleted" arguments frustratingly ad hoc.


body:
Arbitration has justly been called the worst job on Wikipedia. Last year I
seem to recall that only a couple of score of people ran for arbcom, and a
number of those were plainly unsuitable candidates. I just don't think we'd
be able to sustain more than say 20 arbitrators. It may be worth a try,
though.


body:
The Peter principle would be hard at work here. Any decent advocate
would seem to destined to be an arbitrator, but in fact the skills
are different. Advocacy is presentation of a point of view,
arbitration is deciding between points of view. Lack of application
to digging though mountains of evidence does not vitiate
understanding of appropriate choice of alternatives.

Fred

On Oct 5, 2005, at 4:10 PM, Michael Turley wrote:

> On 10/5/05, Theresa Knott <theresaknott at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/5/05, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>>
>>> One of the things which would greatly  improve  functioning and
>>> retention of arbitrators is effective advocates who would select and
>>> present evidence which illustrated the contentions of the
>>> parties. As
>>> it is now the arbitrators themselves are forced to view the
>>> ridiculous amounts of irrelevant crap which the parties advance as
>>> "evidence" and try to figure out on their own what is going on.
>>>
>>> Fred
>>>
>>
>> I'll second that!
>>
>
> Who would be insane enough to take the position, yet reliable enough
> to be useful at it?
>
> The assistants would be "forced to view the ridiculous amounts of
> irrelevant crap" and then, after wading through the morass of garbage,
> nearing enlightenment and ultimate understanding of the conflict, give
> it over to others to make the decisions.
>
> I don't know anyone willing to do that.
>
> It works in the judicial system because of the hierarchy of reward and
> responsibilities; pay your dues, and you can work your way up to a
> better job, more prestige, and more pay.  But on Wikipedia, everything
> is egalitarian; there are few paths "up", and going "up" doesn't earn
> you much.  If you change that, so everything isn't as flat as it can
> be as still run smoothly, you'll ruin the Wiki.
>
> --
> Michael Turley
> User:Unfocused
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: textbook-l

from_name: Karl Wick

subject: [Textbook-l] Re: Wikibooks

body:
Ryan, (and Laurent),

On 10/5/05, rpenner at mail.utexas.edu <rpenner at mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> Karl,
> I'm not sure if my last message went through, so I'll try again. If you got my
> other questions, disregard them and respond to this email instead. I'd like to
> start the interview through email, and I'll call you if I have any follow up
> questions. If you could answer any or all of these questions, I would really
> appreciate it!
>
> First, how did you get started with Wikibooks, and why? Was the site mostly your
> idea, or was it a collaboration?
>

The one who opened his mouth was me, but the idea seems pretty obvious
and I am sure that someone else would have said something soon if I
hadn't. It has been a collaboration from the very beginning, with the
faceless tech guys at Wikipedia who set up the software to Maveric149
who bought the domain name space to each person who has dedicated time
to writing and editing textbook modules, and especially Jimmy Wales
who got Wikipedia started and was the one who gave the go-ahead for
the Wikibooks project.

> To get some sort of time frame, when did the idea for Wikibooks come about, and
> when did the site actually go up?
>

I started writing my OChem book on Wikipedia at the beginning of the
summer 03 quarter at Cleveland State University, and on July 10, 2003
the new site went up. The delay was probably a month.

> How big was the site when it was started, and how big is it now? What do you
> hope to accomplish with Wikibooks in the future?
>

When the site started it had no content, and now it has 11,600+
modules in English and several thousand more in other languages,
although like Wikipedia, English has the most developed content.

The vision that I had when I started Wikibooks was that we would
eventually have free versions of textbooks in all subjects at all
levels from preschool to the most advanced postgraduate, any and every
subject that traditional textbooks currently serve. My idea is that
when there is a good base of information for a book, that is, a decent
book all developed and online at the site, teachers and students can
use that information online, people can print out hard copies to
distribute and sell, but that individuals can also take the content
and modify it for their very private uses. A teacher can decide which
modules to use, what order to use them in, pick between different
modules that serve more or less the same purpose, etc. And of course,
for the person who is already well served by a traditional textbook,
he or she can use the wikitext just as it is, without those laborious
changes.

My dream is that when any  book is finished and online, new
developments can be included as they happen, and the texts can avoid
the problem of traditional texts that get outdated fast. Also the fact
that it is all online means that you can use multimedia right there in
your computer and otherwise interact more than with a printed book.

Another great thing about it all is that errors are corrected in real
time so, unlike traditional books, when errors are there they can be
pointed out and corrected. Also, students can take an active part in
their own education by writing about the things that they are learning
about, especially while the project is relatively new and there are
huge holes in content still. Teachers can work together and decide as
a team what material to include and how to present it, and even have
different options for students with different learning styles. We now
know that different learners have quite different preferences for
their own learning, and having alternative modules customized for a
couple of different styles of learners, with localized examples,
cultural sensitivity according to the end user, the list goes on and
on.

> This is the most important question for me: is there a possible application of
> Wikibooks at the university level? If so, to what extent can Wikibooks be used
> in a college classroom?
>

Part of the answer is above. The answer is absolutely YES. In fact, it
was a university level book that was the first to be started. I think
that study guides are a natural first step, and a study guide fleshed
out could become the outline of a whole textbook.

> Is there a problem with the open-source nature of the site? Specifically, it
> seems like since anybody can write whatever they want on any subject, there may
> be credibility or authenticity issues. Also, might authors with good intentions
> mistakenly take information from bad sources and use it for their
> contributions? Do any of these issues limit in any way the usability of
> Wikibooks in colleges?
>
The material will depend on the quality of the contributions made. The
more teachers, professors, involved students, and other experts we can
have involved, the better the quality of the books and other teaching
materials. Jimmy Wales has focused in on the benefits for the
developing world and I agree, but I also think these texts can make
learning better for users in the developed world, too. My original,
immediate goal was to work with and help out other pre-med students in
the US developing college-level science texts. I think that the more
the students are involved in the process, and the teachers, the better
the final product can be.

> That's it for now. Thanks a lot for all of your help.
>

No problem, I hope that these answers help you out! Have a great day,
Karl

> -Ryan Penner
> Daily Texan
>


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Tag-teaming (was: Fvw's abuse of admin powers)

body:
Let's not continue subject tags that imply someone is guilty. Most of
the time it's a baseless complaint from someone who was banned or
blocked for a very good reason.

I have changed the Subject in the e-mail thread as follows:

* Tag-teaming (was: Fvw's abuse of admin powers)

And when you reply to _this_ message, please strip off the part in
parentheses, so it looks like this:

* Tag-teaming

Thank you.

Ed Poor
One of several mailing list admins

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phroziac [mailto:phroziac at gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 4:52 PM
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Fvw's abuse of admin powers
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> steve v wrote:
> > If the autoblocker actually adds additional time to a
> > block just because someone attempts to edit a page
> > before the block is up, then that is a completely
> > bullshit configuration for the block script.
> It does, and I agree. It blocks you for 24 hours, even if the
> block is less then 24 hours. I have no idea who thought this
> was a good idea...
>
> > 3RR was intended to be a protective measure against
> destructive revert
> > wars, and instead has been turned into a kind punitive
> measure which
> > often is only unilaterally applied. Some people have gotten into the
> > habit of simply gaming the system, by getting a buddy
> > to assist in tag-teaming someone else --producing an
> > apparent greater culpability on the part of the one
> > individual over the other group.
> If they are tag teaming, then the article can be protected to
> force them to discuss it. Additionally, gaming the system
> about 3RR is actually against the 3RR, if you read it
> closely. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFDRDzSVLzO3sKvVBcRAqcgAJ92W77p0rjaMILXRWxlUEN+8qgXrgCffErB
> 8TtYCDrLWg2BSpNFfustcCs=
> =//oj
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>


from_name: Stefan Sittler

subject: [WikiEN-l] Afd nominations

body:
On 10/4/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/4/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes. The opposed groups are not "inclusionists" versus deletionists,
> > but *contributors* versus deletionists. (This is still the case even
> > though the deletionists contribute elsewhere.) Then the deletionists
> > wonder why the contributors get so damn stroppy.
> >
> >
> > - d.
>
> Does this mean that the deletionist get to relalable them selves as
> well? If so can we call it the contributors vs the Encyclopedists ? Or
> we could go the other way and let both sides relable to the opposeing
> sides.

I know, I know: how about the Capulets and Montagues? Crips and the
Bloods? Yeah! Or the Sharks and the Jets. Then there could be a tender
story of children of the warring Associations thrown together by fate
and passion, tossed on the winds of information, tenderly editing each
others articles, realizing the narrow creed they followed was nothing
when it came to verifying AND including their love for another, each
one spouting verse on the others talk page in the middle of the night,
being bold, breaking the 3RR together, only to be cut down and burned
out in a brutal flamewar  ending only in tragedy as one takes the
poison of AfD and the other falls on his own WP:POINT in a message to
all, and eyes are opened by this tragedy, leading to a historic
agreement as Jimbo Wales eulogizes over their young but lifeless
accounts, complete with tender homilies about community and vision and
how he C0ntr0lz Teh Un1v3rs3.

Or not.

smws
(Wikipedia:Kiaparowits)
>
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>


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

Michael Turley wrote:

>It works in the judicial system because of the hierarchy of reward and
>responsibilities; pay your dues, and you can work your way up to a
>better job, more prestige, and more pay. But on Wikipedia, everything
>is egalitarian; there are few paths "up", and going "up" doesn't earn
>you much. If you change that, so everything isn't as flat as it can
>be as still run smoothly, you'll ruin the Wiki.

Yeah, this is why I think the lower-court judges would be the best way
to do this. They still get to make a decision, but it could be
reviewed and reversed later by ArbCom. The judge would more or less
act as the advocate, since there could be more of them, and they would
have fewer cases to handle individually, so they would have more time
to do what ArbCom hates doing and gets burnt out on easily.

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

iD8DBQFDRG4p6MKb8lYmCtcRAjyWAJ4/ffTNGHvAoTlSKKvjC5i6IgYRHACdG+pD
0BrsTsUKIsCjZPXDNpWz394=
=5fGk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Han Dao

subject: [Wikipedia-l] The New Cliche: "It's the Wikipedia of..."

body:
So Wikipedia enter the english dictionary as a common noun o.O

On 10/4/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What is a dermatology atlas?
>
> Dermatology, I understand. Atlas, I understand. But what is a
> dermatology atlas? A book of maps of the skin?
>
> Mark
>
> On 04/10/05, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thought you all would find this amusing - Jeremey Wagstaff, WSJ tech
> > columnist, had a great piece about the Wikipedia as a new cliche...
> >
> > http://loosewire.typepad.com/blog/2005/09/the_new_cliche_.html
> >
> > The New Cliche: "It's the Wikipedia of..."
> >
> > You know something has arrived when it's used to describe a
> > phenomenon. Or what people hope will be a phenomenon. Here's a
> > sampling:
> >
> > * Laptops This from Nicholas Negroponte, describing his $100
> > laptop for the developing world (via Andy Carvin's Waste of
> > Bandwidth): "It's the Wikipedia equivalent (of hardware)," he said,
> > describing the spirit of the laptop initiative.
> >
> > * Gasbuddy Poster at ezboard: "It's the Wikipedia of Gas pumps. I
> > use it whenever I need gas. I can't believe I forgot about it until
> > now."
> >
> > * New York Times ? This from a Xanga blogger: "It's the Wikipedia
> > of newspapers: great resource with plenty of interesting but useless
> > content. For goodness' sake, it's a newspaper, not Cosmo Girl."
> >
> > * The UK Good Food/Good Pub guide, described on Wikipedia chat as
> > "It's the wikipedia of food guides"
> >
> > * Urban Dictionary ? described by this blogger as "the Wikipedia
> > of the streets beyach!"
> >
> > * Sushi World Guide ? "it seems the community is still growing. It
> > is the 'Wikipedia of Sushi'.
> >
> > * Pure Energy Systems ? " We will be the Wikipedia of alternate
> > energy technology."
> >
> > * Wondir ? hailed on the unofficial google blog as "the Wikipedia
> > of answer sites"
> >
> > * Dermatlas ? described here as "the Wikipedia of dermatology atlases"
> >
> > * Math World ? described here as "the wikipedia of math"
> >
> > * GuitarWiki ? described by a visitor as possibly becoming "the
> > Wikipedia of the guitar world"
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
> QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
> POSSIT MATERIARI
> ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>


from_name: Kelly Martin

body:
On 10/5/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps a better way to manage caseload would be to have two or more
> autonomous circuits, each with say seven arbitrators. Jimmy Wales would
> still act as a court of ultimate appeal.

I worry about consistency in such cases.  Jimbo shouldn't have to act
as the sole resolver of "circuit conflict".

Kelly


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

Tony Sidaway wrote:

>
> Mmm, this would make *more* work for arbcom, not less.

Can you explain why you thinkEr, what? We must be misunderstanding
each other, because as I am conceiving of this system, it would be
impossible for ArbCom to have to do more work. At the absolute worst,
it would be the same amount of work. it would be more work for them?

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

iD8DBQFDRHPg6MKb8lYmCtcRAu0tAKCnpfkkEGpWMiEoaDdIhPJntMSedgCfazHw
xbmfuZ31MN22E3FWZpvInWQ=
=k90S
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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

Somehow my last message got garbled a bit. Resending

Tony Sidaway wrote:

>
>> Mmm, this would make *more* work for arbcom, not less.

Er, what? We must be misunderstanding each other, because as I am
conceiving of this system, it would be impossible for ArbCom to have
to do more work. At the absolute worst, it would be the same amount of
work. Can you explain why you think it would be more work for them?

- - Ryan

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

iD8DBQFDRHR36MKb8lYmCtcRAoOIAJsHn82lBqz7DR7A8hKuIUA5Hr+83wCfbLFW
c7b/FzNBTCe2Sb3NcwBr75w=
=Rrpy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Rowan Collins

subject: [Wikitech-l] Single Sign-On

body:
On 05/10/05, Johannes Ernst <jernst+wikipedia.org at netmesh.us> wrote:
> Various people have discussed the desirability of single-sign-on for
> Mediawiki installations.

> My questions:
> 1) Is there any place where people interested in this subject "hang
> out"? (like a wiki page somewhere, ...?)

Well, there's been a lot of discussion on "meta" - e.g.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Single_login - but most of it's been
to-ing and fro-ing about how to transition all the existing wikis,
rather than problems with implementing it per se...

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

I'd have thought so - there's mediawiki-l for mainly "end user" type
issues, and this one for more "nitty gritty" issues. The distinction's
not very clear, though, and this kind of overlaps, really.

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


from_name: geni

body:
On 10/5/05, Snowspinner <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 5, 2005, at 11:22 AM, DF wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Perhaps this just means we should expand the pool of
> > Arbitrators and elect 20 or 30 this time around as
> > some people had proposed (though one might have
> > trouble finding enough people to run).
> >
>
> The problem wouldn't be finding enough people to run. We had 34
> people running last time. The problem would be that, if we had taken
> 30 arbitrators last time, we'd have six arbitrators who are under
> various forms of arbcom parole, including one who is currently banned
> for a year.
>
> Best,
> Phil Sandifer

Perhaps but if that looked like happening I suspect more would run.

--
geni


from_name: Michael Turley

body:
On 10/5/05, Theresa Knott <theresaknott at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/5/05, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> > One of the things which would greatly  improve  functioning and
> > retention of arbitrators is effective advocates who would select and
> > present evidence which illustrated the contentions of the parties. As
> > it is now the arbitrators themselves are forced to view the
> > ridiculous amounts of irrelevant crap which the parties advance as
> > "evidence" and try to figure out on their own what is going on.
> >
> > Fred
>
> I'll second that!

Who would be insane enough to take the position, yet reliable enough
to be useful at it?

The assistants would be "forced to view the ridiculous amounts of
irrelevant crap" and then, after wading through the morass of garbage,
nearing enlightenment and ultimate understanding of the conflict, give
it over to others to make the decisions.

I don't know anyone willing to do that.

It works in the judicial system because of the hierarchy of reward and
responsibilities; pay your dues, and you can work your way up to a
better job, more prestige, and more pay.  But on Wikipedia, everything
is egalitarian; there are few paths "up", and going "up" doesn't earn
you much.  If you change that, so everything isn't as flat as it can
be as still run smoothly, you'll ruin the Wiki.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


from_name: Amruta Lonkar

body:
I am still a little confused. I went through the getEditToolbar() method. From
what i understand the buttons in this tool bar will add the appropriate tags
when inserting/writing an article. What i was hoping to do was, when a user
clicks on the button associated with references, it will pull up the page i
have created in extensions. This is just a form where the user can enter
relevant information related to a reference.

Ashar could you tell me how i should go about doing this. I am just a beginner
so am stuck on these little things.

thanks,
Amruta

Quoting ?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason <avarab at gmail.com>:

> On 10/5/05, Ashar Voultoiz <hashar at altern.org> wrote:
> > Maybe Avar can add the hooks, I am sure he likes them :p
>
> Yummie hooks...
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

--
Amruta


from_name: Worldtraveller

body:
I appreciate your help on peer review!  I think there are plenty of fields
in which layman assistance is essential to keep Wikipedia's audience as
broad as possible, and I find thorough reviews by non-astronomers of my
astronomy articles very helpful in that respect.  Just remember that
astronomy is the father of all science, and only bad writing can make an
astronomy article less than utterly fascinating :)

Cheers,
WT

-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Norton [mailto:wxprojects at comcast.net]
Sent: 05 October 2005 4:11 PM
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Taking your eyes off the ball

Hi there :),

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

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

Thanks,
Ryan


body:
On 10/5/05, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Michael Turley wrote:
>
> >It works in the judicial system because of the hierarchy of reward and
> >responsibilities; pay your dues, and you can work your way up to a
> >better job, more prestige, and more pay. But on Wikipedia, everything
> >is egalitarian; there are few paths "up", and going "up" doesn't earn
> >you much. If you change that, so everything isn't as flat as it can
> >be as still run smoothly, you'll ruin the Wiki.
>
> Yeah, this is why I think the lower-court judges would be the best way
> to do this. They still get to make a decision, but it could be
> reviewed and reversed later by ArbCom. The judge would more or less
> act as the advocate, since there could be more of them, and they would
> have fewer cases to handle individually, so they would have more time
> to do what ArbCom hates doing and gets burnt out on easily.

In an egalitarian society, why would anyone bother to arbitrate if
they're going to be subject to review by some other arbitrators?  It's
not like we have any justification for hierarchy among arbitrators,
since no one here has more than five years' experience, and most have
none or almost none.  It's not like we're reviewing your resume for
relevant experience and doing background checks, either.

I prefer a panel of thirty to sixty or so potential arbitrators, from
which a round-robin semi-random set of eleven or so vote whether each
case has merit or not.  Maybe a few of them would be "core
arbitrators", two or three of whom are assigned each case.    Allowing
for recusals, burnouts, dropouts mid case, wikibreaks and vacations,
eleven is just an arbitrary number that should give a broad base for
any decisions, and should almost always result in a panel of seven or
more to make the final decision.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


from_name: Ryan Lane

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Single Sign-On

body:
Ashar Voultoiz <hashar at ...> writes:

>
> Johannes Ernst wrote:
> > Various people have discussed the desirability of single-sign-on for
> > Mediawiki installations.
> > I'm interested in the same thing and have been working on that for a
> > little bit.
> >
> > So far: "It's working!" for 1.5rc4
>
> Well there is some code for single signon already, commited in August
> 2004 (so most probably available since 1.4.x).
>
> The parameter is $wgSharedDB , should be set to a database name in wich
> is a shared 'user' table. Seems experimental (read: wikipedia does not
> use it).
>
> The code from HEAD includes/Database.php :
>
> function tableName( $name ) {
> <snip>
>   if ( isset( $wgSharedDB ) && "{$this->mTablePrefix}user" == $name ) {
>     $name = "`$wgSharedDB`.`$name`";
>   } else {
>     # Standard quoting
>     $name = "`$name`";
>   }
> <snip>
>  return $name;
>
> > My questions:
> > 1) Is there any place where people interested in this subject "hang
> > out"? (like a wiki page somewhere, ...?)
> > 2) Is this the right mailing list to discuss this?
>
> You can find some kind of hackers in the MediaWiki-l mailing list, most
> developers read it and _at least_ Brion (our release manager) answer ;)
>
> You are actually posting on wikitech-l which is for WikiMedia setup
> issues (same people, different issues).
>
> cheers,
>

There is also the possibility of using LDAP as an authentication source, and
pointing wikis at the LDAP servers. It is possible to break up the LDAP
structure into multiple OUs or domains (with OUs being preferred) for
transitional purposes.

Using LDAP could also move the authentication load off the databases, and onto
the LDAP servers.

I have written a patch for MediaWiki that supports the multiple domain model
(but could be extended for the multiple OU model). It is currently most useful
for small to large sized internal wikis, but with some tweeking could work in
much larger situations. This patch is currently being used for authentication
only, but people are adding support for group based authorization, and user
based rights.

I'm not trying to push this as a definate solution, but definately as a possible
solution.

V/r,

Ryan Lane


from_name: Alphax

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

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

David Gerard wrote:
> Neil Harris wrote:
>
<snip>
>
>>One interesting possibility is, in addition to user rankings, using the
>>number of times the article's title is mentioned on the web -- the
>>Google test -- as an extra input to any hypothetical ranking system.
>
>
>
> Now *that*'s a new and potentially useful idea.
>

Ooh, like Technorati Trackback for Wikipedia entries?

A "What links here" that covers the entire internet?

(On the plus side, it would make fixing interwiki links a heck of a lot
easier...)

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

iQEVAwUBQ0OdebMAAH8MeUlWAQikwQf9GgK2oeO3uG666DkMwegXHRSQkdupPk2f
VscFrwEdTiclXCCzunR97043Enjx1xJXCjaIYFhkG/tvI1FnMOcXtxzFWUpGQNk2
4DOznFzRdmsRDNGx5xrDHbTs8hbpjY5A+VlWfG7RZPK8Tb2q06qWKwU1FD+fMyU2
bZzds68dPSJxKCfwcYHksGQiEFXIlCGPnK6G6I3UefcnBS2Ff7yNA7rYvKORl+gA
00hIRaRlH/W5udH58p/O/xQwOcW4DEKR7qhX2bc7yBceSZqqxnnR+oOQ6tN18Ekp
ItdsWh6hr2RfSjPrdjlM2R8HeP/Vo3Pb5URW5xtSYFDslbYwzdaC6w==
=tbzG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Single Sign-On

body:
Johannes Ernst wrote:
> Various people have discussed the desirability of single-sign-on for
> Mediawiki installations.
> I'm interested in the same thing and have been working on that for a
> little bit.
>
> So far: "It's working!" for 1.5rc4 ;-)

Well there is some code for single signon already, commited in August
2004 (so most probably available since 1.4.x).

The parameter is $wgSharedDB , should be set to a database name in wich
is a shared 'user' table. Seems experimental (read: wikipedia does not
use it).

The code from HEAD includes/Database.php :

function tableName( $name ) {
<snip>
  if ( isset( $wgSharedDB ) && "{$this->mTablePrefix}user" == $name ) {
    $name = "`$wgSharedDB`.`$name`";
  } else {
    # Standard quoting
    $name = "`$name`";
  }
<snip>
 return $name;

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

You can find some kind of hackers in the MediaWiki-l mailing list, most
developers read it and _at least_ Brion (our release manager) answer ;)

You are actually posting on wikitech-l which is for WikiMedia setup
issues (same people, different issues).

cheers,

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/
IM: hashar at jabber.org  ICQ: 15325080


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

Hello,

Three possibilities:

1/ The text editor buttons are in a <div id='toolbar'> so you can
probably make a javascript that add new buttons.

-> might be a bit of troubles if you dont know javascript (like me)

2/ We could also add a hook so extensions can add new buttons easily
(read without javascript hacking).

-> need a developer to add hooks and make them available in next 1.5.
But it is in Release Candidate status and I dont think we add any new
features in that branch. Might be for 1.6 (march-april 2006?).

3/ You can hack the source code: the function that build the editing
toolbar is in ./include/EditPage.php , method getEditToolbar() .

-> it is the fastest way for you, but you will have to keep a patch of
your changes for futures upgrades.

Maybe Avar can add the hooks, I am sure he likes them :p

cheers,

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/
IM: hashar at jabber.org  ICQ: 15325080


from_name: Urs Richle

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Map of Wikipedia

body:
deborah.macpherson <deborah.macpherson at ...> writes:
>
> I am interested in making a map of Wikipedia in order to
streamline the content,
> provide an overview of different areas, and connect
Wikipedia to digital archives
> maintained by museums and laboratories all around
the world. For more information
> please see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CDT_proposal .
>
> If you would like to collaborate, or if you
already have similar efforts underway,
> please contact me.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Deborah MacPherson
>
>
> *************************************************
>
> Deborah MacPherson, Projects Director
> Accuracy&Aesthetics, A Nonprofit Organization for the
> Advancement of Education, Cultural Heritage, and Science
> www.accuracyandaesthetics.com
> www.deborahmacpherson.com
>
> mailing address: PO Box 52, Vienna VA 22183 USA
> phones: 703 585 8924 and 703 242 9411
> mailto:debmacp at ...
>
> The content of this email may contain private and confidential
> information. Do not forward, copy, share, or otherwise distribute
> without explicit written permission from all correspondents.
>
> **************************************************
>

Hello,
I'm working on a project to visualize the semantic network of
MediaWiki-content. I tested the SpecialPage implementation of the
Touchgraph-applet on
http://wiki.sheherazade.ch/index.php/Spezial:Touchgraph (thanks to
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fxparlant/Touchgraph).
My idea is to use the Topic Maps (XTM)-standard to describe the
semantic network. XTM allows a more complex description of all
different kinds of links then the XML-file used by Touchgraph.
Applications like Omnigator from Ontopia (http://www.ontopia.net)
are able to read and visualize XTM-files.

The seconde idea is to propose a list of different links for an
article and the XTM-file by a webservice (compare RPC-interface of
JSPWiki --> http://www.jspwiki.org/wiki/WikiRPCInterface).
I will use the NuSOAP-library for this.

Does someone work on a similar project to describe the semantic
network of MediaWiki-content with XTM, RDF or OWL?

Does someone work on a webservice-extension for MediaWiki?

Please contact me.

Urs Richle
ww.sheherazade.ch
TECFA, University of Geneva, Switzerland
http://tecfa.unige.ch/


from_name: Phroziac

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

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

steve v wrote:
> If the autoblocker actually adds additional time to a
> block just because someone attempts to edit a page
> before the block is up, then that is a completely
> bullshit configuration for the block script.
It does, and I agree. It blocks you for 24 hours, even if the block is
less then 24 hours. I have no idea who thought this was a good idea...

> 3RR was intended to be a protective measure against
> destructive revert wars, and instead has been turned
> into a kind punitive measure which often is only
> unilaterally applied. Some people have gotten into the
> habit of simply gaming the system, by getting a buddy
> to assist in tag-teaming someone else --producing an
> apparent greater culpability on the part of the one
> individual over the other group.
If they are tag teaming, then the article can be protected to force them
to discuss it. Additionally, gaming the system about 3RR is actually
against the 3RR, if you read it closely.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDRDzSVLzO3sKvVBcRAqcgAJ92W77p0rjaMILXRWxlUEN+8qgXrgCffErB
8TtYCDrLWg2BSpNFfustcCs=
=//oj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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

Fred Bauder wrote:
> As I previously suggested, we need to run arbitrators through the  test
> of whether they are willing and able to do the work (and take  the
> pressure). I suggest a wide funnel collecting potential  arbitrators and
> easy removal of those who try but fail (measuring  failure by actual
> participation).
>
> Fred
Want a guineau pig for a test of that? Sounds great to me, and I'm
interested in running for arbcom. I think. I'm not really sure of anything.

- --
Phroziac                    |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xC2AF5417  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/anya2    |   / \
(Computer clock currently thinks it should be set to UTC.)

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

iD8DBQFDREARVLzO3sKvVBcRAkzlAJ46JdNPcSBVljphihYPf/+fKd//5QCfSAzu
9K8OhSl3Z9czcVpnIIxrbLc=
=PDgH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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

Fred Bauder wrote:
> My feeling is that we should require at least 5 arbitrators to accept  a
> case and those who accepted the case would be responsible for  deciding it.
>
> Fred
But certainly 5 isn't a big leap from 4.

- --
Phroziac                    |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xC2AF5417  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/anya2    |   / \
(Computer clock currently thinks it should be set to UTC.)

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

iD8DBQFDREBAVLzO3sKvVBcRApLcAJ9uUjCna0AIRXnCAC/vruCPD/SZGgCeMRkY
CuT8koxlca4IZOQ5REbztGU=
=k+v+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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

Fred Bauder wrote:
> Many folks who run for arbitrator, and are elected, fail to work out,
> as being a Wikipedia Arbitrator involves very tedious and time
> consuming research into the edits made by the parties. I suggest that
> all administrators be considered potential arbitrators. Those among  the
> administrators who are willing and able to do the work involved  should,
> by demonstration of their work, assume the role.
>
> I suggest that any administrator should be able to "accept" an
> arbitration and then participate in resolving it.
>
> Fred
Sounds good to me.

- --
Phroziac                    |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xC2AF5417  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/anya2    |   / \
(Computer clock currently thinks it should be set to UTC.)

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

iD8DBQFDREC/VLzO3sKvVBcRAoJfAJ0T9LdqQYTkBr1FViPjIajBH+mJEACfSrFf
htRiDyrpougg4qICn7OnwTs=
=uyTC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Arbeo M

subject: Ant:  [Wikipedia-l] Kinaray-a wikipedia request

body:
--- "Vincent \"Bentong\" S. Isles"
<bentong_isles at yahoo.com> schrieb:

> Hi,
>
> I would like to clarify why Kinaray-a has been
> removed
> from the requests for new languages. I don't speak
> Kinaray-a myself, but I am a Filipino, and our group
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/philwiki> has been
> trying to solicit support for the creation of the
> said
> Wikipedia.
>
> I am moving it again in the new requests. Please
> wait
> for us to gather enough support before it is
> transferred again to no support. Thanks.
>
> --[[ceb:User:Bentong Isles]]
>
Don't worry, Vincent. Tuf-Kat was only trying to make
the main requests page a little more concise as was
overflowing already. Moving Kinaray-a off the main
page was probably a little premature as it was still
attracting new supporters and only lacking another
native speaker.

As a general rule of thumb I think every request
should be left on the main page for at least a month
(unless a request is complete nonsense, of course).

Best,

Arbeo

___________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de


from_name: Wikipedia Romania (Ronline)

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Transfer of Aromanian Wikipedia to new subdomain

body:
Hi,

I was wondering if the Aromanian Wikipedia could be
moved to a new subdomain since the language has just
received its own three-letter ISO code, "rup".

When the Wikipedia was set up, there was no ISO code,
just a SIL code, so the subdomain is at:
http://roa-rup.wikipedia.org

"roa" is the ISO code for "Other Romance languages",
while "rup" was the SIL code for Aromanian.

Danutz, another member from the Romanian Wikipedia,
applied for an ISO code last year, and received a
reply
recently that an ISO code had been allocated
to the language (which has about 500,000 speakers).

The e-mail is as follows:

    The ISO 639 Registration Authorities' Joint
Advisory Committee (JAC) has decided to include in the
ISO 639-2 table (alpha-3):

    Identifier: rup
    English name: Aromanian; Arumanian;
Macedo-Romanian; Macedo-Romanian
    French name: aroumain; mac?do-roumain
    Indigenous name: arm?neashti

    Best regards,
    H?vard Hjulstad
    (secretary of ISO 639 JAC)

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    H?vard Hjulstad
    Standard Norge / Standards Norway

        P.O.Box 242, NO-1326 Lysaker (Norway)
        +47 67838645 (direct) fax: +47 67838601

    http://www.standard.no/
    mailto:hhj at standard.no
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, I was wondering whether it was possible for the
Wikipedia to be moved to:
http://rup.wikipedia.org

This is now the ISO code and the convention states
that Wikipedia subdomains should be based on ISO
codes.

Cheers,

Ronline

--- wikipedia-l-request at Wikimedia.org wrote:

> Send Wikipedia-l mailing list submissions to
> 	wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
> visit
>
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body
> 'help' to
> 	wikipedia-l-request at Wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	wikipedia-l-owner at Wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it
> is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikipedia-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: uh (Alfio Puglisi)
>    2. Re: Information in advance about mowiki
> happenings (Andre Engels)
>    3. Re: Information in advance about mowiki
> happenings
>       (Mark Williamson)
>    4. Re: Wikimentaries and multimedia collaboration
> (Cormac Lawler)
>    5. FYI:Is the Wikipedia Neutral? (a draft)
> (Joseph Reagle)
>    6. The New Cliche: "It's the Wikipedia of..."
> (Andrew Lih)
>    7. Re: The New Cliche: "It's the Wikipedia of..."
> (Mark Williamson)
>    8. Re: Wikipedia as community service (Greg
> Andrews)
>    9. Re: Re: Wikipedia as community service
> (Alphax)
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 12:54:09 +0200 (MEST)
> From: Alfio Puglisi <puglisi at arcetri.astro.it>
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] uh
> To: wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <Pine.SOC.4.63.0510021253140.16920 at zeus>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII;
> format=flowed
>
> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005, Phroziac wrote:
>
> > I have not gotten any list mail for several hours.
> Is the list down?
>
> When you have such doubts, check the list archive:
>
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/
>
> Alfio
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 13:52:11 +0200
> From: Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Information in advance
> about mowiki
> 	happenings
> To: Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>,
> wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org
> Message-ID:
> <6faf39c905100204526ba5c350 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> 2005/10/1, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Currently there is a sysop election on mowiki,
> where 3 candidates are
> > pitted against each other rather than being voted
> on separately: Me,
> > Dmitriid, and Jeorjika.
>
> This I find a strange situation. Especially when
> there is a situation
> with different parties, the best solution seems to
> be to have
> representers of all sides be made sysops rather than
> vote between them
> (unless there is a comromise candidate acceptable
> for all).
>
> Could you perhaps try to resolve the situation by
> promising that if
> you get elected, you will nominate the other
> candidates for sysophood
> as well, and ask them to make a similar promise in
> return?
>
> --
> Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
> ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 18:27:18 -0700
> From: Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Information in advance
> about mowiki
> 	happenings
> To: wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org
> Message-ID:
> <849f98ed0510021827u36dcb675k at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Yes, an adversarial system does seem to be quite
> strange.
>
> I am actually already sysop, having requested it for
> interface
> translation months ago.
>
> While I'm sure Dmitriid would have no problem
> nominating either me or
> Jeorjika, and I would have no problem nominating
> either, I'm not sure
> Jeorjika would nominate me as the whole purpose of
> his campaign seems
> to have been to replace me because of my alleged
> hatred for Romanians,
> and my failure to "satisfy the community", despite
> the fact that there
> _is_ no community.
>
> Mark
>
> On 02/10/05, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > 2005/10/1, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Currently there is a sysop election on mowiki,
> where 3 candidates are
> > > pitted against each other rather than being
> voted on separately: Me,
> > > Dmitriid, and Jeorjika.
> >
> > This I find a strange situation. Especially when
> there is a situation
> > with different parties, the best solution seems to
> be to have
> > representers of all sides be made sysops rather
> than vote between them
> > (unless there is a comromise candidate acceptable
> for all).
> >
> > Could you perhaps try to resolve the situation by
> promising that if
> > you get elected, you will nominate the other
> candidates for sysophood
> > as well, and ask them to make a similar promise in
> return?
> >
> > --
> > Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
> > ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
> >
>
>
> --
> SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
> QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA
> MONAX MATERIAM
> POSSIT MATERIARI
> ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:45:54 +0100
> From: Cormac Lawler <cormaggio at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikimentaries and
> multimedia collaboration
> To: SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com>,
> wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org
> Message-ID:
>
>
<e3930910510030445q43712026k824f6dc5d8af5390 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 10/1/05, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 9/26/05, Cormac Lawler <cormaggio at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for pointing this out, Sj. I talked about
> a
=== message truncated ===

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


from_name: charles matthews

body:
Title of a column in today's London Independent, by technology correspondent
Charles Arthur.  Oh, BTW, it's favourable to WP.

Charles


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 05/10/05, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Title of a column in today's London Independent, by technology correspondent
> Charles Arthur.  Oh, BTW, it's favourable to WP.

I noticed that...

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article317360.ece

"Wikipedia is the top result on Google, the site that the most links
point to from elsewhere on the web"

Someone seems to have claimed recently that the top ranking of
everything on Google is Wikipedia:

http://www.socialtext.com/weblog/050930wpvsgoogle.html

The problem is, it seems to be a rather impressively flawed claim, for example:

http://google.weblogsinc.com/entry/1234000260061718/

(Incidentally, the *+* search now seems to not work - it was
displaying much odder results earlier in the day. I tend towards the
"weird glitch in google" rather than the "sekrit underlying hierarchy
of teh web revealed" theory...)

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


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

Fred Bauder wrote:
> I encourage anyone to run, but to not be surprised if the actual work
> is both confusing and tedious. When you dig into the diffs, it often
> takes some mulling over to figure out what is going on. An  appropriate
> remedy, not too much, not too little is another matter,  then there is
> the process of arriving at agreement among arbitrators.
>
> Fred

Where and how do you run?
- --
Phroziac                    |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xC2AF5417  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/anya2    |   / \
(Computer clock currently thinks it should be set to UTC.)

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

iD8DBQFDREiOVLzO3sKvVBcRAldFAJ46dHC4pDNKYt9Z1fQGsVGHYdMn/gCff6G1
xni/XI7b8qRU+5/ccuescqc=
=kqxu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.4.11, 1.3.17 security updates

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

MediaWiki 1.4.11 and 1.3.17 are a security maintenance releases. Unsafe
handling of CSS by Microsoft Internet Explorer could be exploited to
produce cross-site scripting attacks by JavaScript injection to clients
running that browser.

This release blacklists several additional variants from use in HTML
inline style attributes.

All publicly accessible wikis are recommended to upgrade to reduce the
risk to visitors using Microsoft web browsers.

Note: the MediaWiki 1.4.x and 1.3.x series are not compatible with PHP
5.0.5 or higher. Upgrade to the 1.5.0 release if you require this
version of PHP 5.

Release notes:
http://sourceforge.net/project/shownotes.php?release_id=361505 1.4.11
http://sourceforge.net/project/shownotes.php?release_id=361504 1.3.17

Download:
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/wikipedia/mediawiki-1.4.11.tar.gz?download
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/wikipedia/mediawiki-1.3.17.tar.gz?download

MD5 checksums:
023e296dea4274af190f286064e1be27  mediawiki-1.4.11.tar.gz
d2fe05847162501f2aa7b8cb65114f69  mediawiki-1.3.17.tar.gz

Before asking for help, try the FAQ:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_FAQ

Low-traffic release announcements mailing list:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce

Wiki admin help mailing list:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l

Bug report system:
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/

Play "stump the developers" live on IRC:
#mediawiki on irc.freenode.net

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDRKyKwRnhpk1wk44RApYRAKCqXGkzbd1fHiX0+xgzxkH031mSbACfYIui
e5Vv1p3+XKOzu1MhjjF4lWA=
=1j+t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.5.0 released

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

MediaWiki 1.5.0 is the new stable release branch of MediaWiki, and is
recommended for all new installations.

See the release notes (link below) for details of new features and
requirements.

Any wikis running a 1.5 beta or release candidate are strongly
recommended to upgrade to the final release, which includes a number of
bug fixes and a security fix for CSS bugs in Microsoft Internet Explorer.

IMPORTANT: Running a 1.3 or 1.4 wiki and don't want to jump to 1.5 yet?
Be sure to upgrade to 1.3.17 or 1.4.11, also released today. Versions
prior to 1.3.16 and 1.4.10 have a serious data corruption bug which is
triggered by a spambot known to operate in the wild.

Release notes:
http://sourceforge.net/project/shownotes.php?release_id=361506

Download:
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/wikipedia/mediawiki-1.5.0.tar.gz?download

MD5 checksum:
b431e82ee5fd0d619d17cb2d417387c3  mediawiki-1.5.0.tar.gz

Before asking for help, try the FAQ:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_FAQ

Low-traffic release announcements mailing list:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce

Wiki admin help mailing list:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l

Bug report system:
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/

Play "stump the developers" live on IRC:
#mediawiki on irc.freenode.net

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDRKyrwRnhpk1wk44RAjBhAKCwMKBNBviPZL/8h5/qgAm1WPKJUgCfcbBj
aTFHYRsaDB04lX5zs9R9CGI=
=M4I7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

body:
On 10/5/05, Ashar Voultoiz <hashar at altern.org> wrote:
> Maybe Avar can add the hooks, I am sure he likes them :p

Yummie hooks...


from_name: Tony Sidaway

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

body:
On 10/5/05, steve v <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> If the rule is infallible, what
> actually confirms this --ie. reviews and corrects the
> rules when they are not? I cant go around filing
> Arbcom cases for every sysop whom I think is acting
> like a jerk in enforcing "da rulz." (Rather, it seems
> quite natural to emulate them ;).
>

I'm not sure whether you're asking what we have as a check on enforcement of
[[WP:3RR]]. In case you are, that is performed in the first instance by the
administrators' noticeboard section [[WP:AN3]].

Wrongful use of the administrator's powers under that rule can be reviewed
there. This doesn't prove that 3RR is infallible (actually I find it a
useless rule and never have anything to do with it, relying instead on
commonsense and public review of my actions) but it does provide a check on
abuse of the rule.


from_name: Michael Snow

body:
Kelly Martin wrote:

>I would prefer to keep the ArbCom at its current size (or close to it)
>and establish lower courts to filter off the relatively easy stuff and
>to organize the cases into a form so that when they do appeal the
>ArbCom doesn't have to waste as much time marshalling the case.
>
>
This is roughly what I suggested prior to the election last year:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-November/017170.html
We would simply need to figure out the number of magistrates (my term
for the people on the next level down) and how to select them.

--Michael Snow


from_name: Theresa Knott

body:
On 10/5/05, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> One of the things which would greatly  improve  functioning and
> retention of arbitrators is effective advocates who would select and
> present evidence which illustrated the contentions of the parties. As
> it is now the arbitrators themselves are forced to view the
> ridiculous amounts of irrelevant crap which the parties advance as
> "evidence" and try to figure out on their own what is going on.
>
> Fred

I'll second that!

Theresa


body:
Fred Bauder wrote

> We are destined for the top ten. However as we show no ambition to  serve
> as a general search engine Google will not be "swallowed".

Ah, but the amusement comes from speculating that in the fullness of time,
we might as well have outsourced the dull business of searching WP,
retaining editorial control ...

Arthur is a correspondent to take seriously.  The article reads slightly
curiously, as if WP was a glorified web directory.

Charles


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

Phil Boswell wrote:
> I have just discovered that a bunch of these have been obliterated as an
> unfortunate side-effect of an entirely right-minded drive to delete orphan
> talk pages.
>
> The particular page which I stumbled across is
> [[Talk:Constitutional_Charter_of_Serbia_and_Montenegro/Delete]] which can be
> viewed here (if you have the right credentials :-):
> *
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Talk:Constitutional_Charter_of_Serbia_and_Montenegro/Delete
>
> I understand that there is another project currently underway, moving the
> old VFD discussions to AFD. Should these even older discussions be treated
> in a similar fashion?

Yes, they should be undeleted to (Insert current TLA here) subpages...

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

iQEVAwUBQ0PZ6bMAAH8MeUlWAQj86Qf/RL7LfhzJuyjAAbHyBvRsJ8t/IYAtfHk4
Gm2KHGXUPMetpFcQbGJt7CjhQFLJ55RPbbbcrepuEu6Z/EB1mZZbkkoFb+OVc1pg
MBTDUONEW1oQmZ1pD6H+ffd1diiFK8kgJearIXfu6BN4lCRYg7O9BPkVaXI2S7nN
vWJ15MqThOf3j6lPgx9Q4TcykNDcBMtzFBQVQQKr0cfnV2/5h/c8kmtlWrPVsGKP
+L7GbnjDQMwUiykBMrhI+Qo23GNknLemE6IxEpcX3B0ajWTU2H6kBKUrLHwtbBWt
LW5gwEAM85z3aoq0/eu+4vY6f9WkhvEQ2xLHd9mk6temV7M3ZRoVdQ==
=Z0SM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: geni

body:
On 10/5/05, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Arthur is a correspondent to take seriously.  The article reads slightly
> curiously, as if WP was a glorified web directory.
>
> Charles

It can be used for that.

--
geni


body:
On 10/5/05, Phroziac <phroziac at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Where and how do you run?

Nominations have not yet opened. When they do thry will be hard to miss.

--
geni


body:
On 10/6/05, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah, this is why I think the lower-court judges would be the best way
> to do this. They still get to make a decision, but it could be
> reviewed and reversed later by ArbCom.

Mmm, this would make *more* work for arbcom, not less.

Perhaps a better way to manage caseload would be to have two or more
autonomous circuits, each with say seven arbitrators. Jimmy Wales would
still act as a court of ultimate appeal.


body:
On 10/5/05, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> I worry about consistency in such cases.  Jimbo shouldn't have to act
> as the sole resolver of "circuit conflict".
>
> Kelly

He volenteered. Have a sytem for swticting members between groups of
oit would be a problem.

--
geni


subject: [Wikipedia-l] A remarkable Milestone

body:
Usually, jubilees of individual Wikipedias announced
here are not as interesting to the readers as they are
to the one who announces them.

Nevertheless, here's one milestone that I think is
well worth being noted. It's not exactly the number of
articles passed - 100 - it's rather the Wikipedia that
has produced them.

I'm talking about the Waray-Waray edition which was
created not even a fortnight ago. Sure, it's still a
very long way to go from having 100 articles to having
a full-size encyclopedia. But then again, almost half
of all Wikipedias have not yet reached that mark even
though they have existed for much longer then
Waray-Waray.

Is there something we can learn from this example? I
most definitely think so. It's the fact that neither
setting up new language subdomains by the dozen nor
ruling them out altogether is the right answer to the
question of multilingualism. Instead - at least that's
what I'm convinced of - will having a clear set of
rules for new languages and as well as looking into
each case individually increase Wikipedia's value even
more in the future.

My congratulations to our friends from the
Philippines! Please keep up the good work.

Arbeo

___________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de