subject: [Wikitech-l] Messages and stub globals

body:
Stub globals are an idea I came up with to migrate from global dependant
code to lazy module initialisation in a fairly painless way. The general
idea is:

class StubClass {
     function __call( $name, $args ) {
         global $wgSomeObject;
         if ( get_class( $wgSomeObject ) != 'RealClass' ) {
             $wgSomeObject = new RealClass;
         }
         return call_user_func_array( array( $wgSomeObject, $name ), $args );
     }
}
$wgSomeObject = new StubClass;

This turns out to be quite robust and effective, and I've implemented it in
my working copy for $wgLoadBalancer, $wgContLang, $wgUser, $wgOut,
$wgParser, $wgMessageCache and $wgAuth. I've managed to arrange it so that
all of these globals make it out of Setup.php without being accessed.
$wgTitle and $wgArticle have simply been replaced by null until after
Setup.php, the exception handling code can now deal with this. This provides
a massive time saving for lightweight requests on systems with no opcode
cache. My own desktop computer is one such system, and 304 "not modified"
responses are 2-3 times faster than they were before. Other requests which
benefit are query.php, action=raw and command line scripts such as eval.php.
Parser cache hits load pretty much everything, so they don't really benefit.

In my post title "Ideas for faster MediaWiki startup", I also described a
change to modules and extensions, allowing their initialisation to be
deferred. This has not been done yet, so at the moment, many extensions will
access global variables on startup and thus load large amounts of code. The
benefit above thus mainly applies to installations with no extensions.

However, everything benefits from the message cache that I described in my
previous post. Here is the current working diff with both of those changes
included:

http://noc.wikimedia.org/~tstarling/messages-and-stub-globals.diff

File size is 196 KB.

-- Tim Starling


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blogosphere takes notice of Reuters confusion

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

> On 7/17/06, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I disagree - I think the WP community should keep the press
>> accountable on how Wikipedia is reported. However, I do agree that
>> critcism should be constructive, and not snarky and obnoxious, as
>> comments on this list tend to be.
>
> IMHO, snarky and obnoxious is fine for this list - even if it's
> publicly readable, it's essentially an internal, private mailing list.
> That is, statements on it should not be taken to reflect any broader
> "on record" sentiment. The Wikipedia Signpost is a different matter.

The Wikipedia Signpost has been known to quote from this list, however.
Essentially internal, perhaps, but given a particular set of
circumstances comments can be picked up and spread, and snarky and
obnoxious sometimes has greater news appeal.

--Michael Snow


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Things about admins

references:
<e98jf0$9c4$1@sea.gmane.org>	<l3lfb2hms38p953ba8ao8hut6ki1f67qag@4ax.com>	<e98l3m$eom$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<2lsfb2l3571cf9hi0s7odcnvc9liqv2glf@4ax.com>
	<e9gf9e$pbl$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:52:53 +0100, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:

>I notice that many of these admin's accounts of such events look very
>similar. Is it very hard for you to imagine that the other side of the
>story looks different?

Not at all.  I am a Christian, I know exactly how it feels to be
absolutely *certain* about something which others reject out of hand,
and demand proof of a sort which cannot be provided.

>You say he was "absolutely determined to add
>[...]" - well, maybe he thought he was adding "the truth" or
>"encyclopedic information"? You say he "flatly refused to engage in
>talk" - well, maybe he was new and didn't know about talk pages, or
>thought you were referring to this User-talk page?

Yes, he thinks he was adding The Truth [TM].  He started an ArbCom
case, in fact (so far rejected 0/3/0).

He believes that the only neutral portrayal of the doping allegations
against Lance Armstrong is to present every single allegation, to note
that friends and team-mates have been convicted, and to play down the
fact that Armstrong has, thus far, won or had dropped every court
case, including one against the Sunday Times which hinges on precisely
the issue in dispute: the ST implied that Armstrong was guilty of
doping, rather than there being grounds for suspicion.  And even when
that fact was inserted he "balanced" it by saying that Armstrong lost
an appeal to have a retraction printed (I don't think many people get
that remedy through the courts), without mentioning that the ST made a
full apology.

Edit summary "Armstrong lost at court" (no he didn't, he won)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Walsh_%28sports_reporter%29&diff=prev&oldid=64308854

Or how about this gem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Walsh&diff=prev&oldid=63768888

>--- And what about
>all the stuff that you left out of your account, such as the wording of
>your messages to him, or the edit summary of the reverts? I don't know
>about your specific case, but many admins use words like "vandalism" or
>"POV-pushing" very liberally and pretend like it's perfectly within
>their rights to do so and to ban anyone who doesn't like it.

I have apologised for being obnoxious to him (which I was).  He has
yet to accept that the idea of [[WP:BLP]] has any merit at all.

>> I think people are used to forums and Usenet where proof by assertion
>> is a valid technique and where saying the same thing only louder will
>> very often work.

>Admins get away with that all the time.

When it is "stop blanking articles" or "stop posting defamatory
content" that is not really a surprise....

>> The idea of sitting down and talking calmly about it often does not
>> appear to occur to these people.

>Do you think the user's impression of the blocking admin is that of
>someone who likes to sit down and talk calmly about it?

Dunno.  I talk calmly to blocked people all the time.  Not always, but
often.

>>>That's a tautology. Someone who is blocked hardly has any chance to be
>>>(and, in most cases, any interest in being) at all productive. What
>>>percentage of people that are blocked and never return, would have been
>>>genuinely productive if they hadn't been blocked? How can you tell?

>> SPUI.

>There you go, so examples do exist.

Indeed.  If I didn't believe POV-pushers could be saved I'd
indef-block them all on sight, wouldn't I?

>Maybe I think this way because I was treated that way on my very first
>day. Although admittedly I didn't get blocked or anything, I did make a
>good-faith contribution which was, within minutes, deleted (the correct
>action would have been to turn it into a redirect). Not knowing that
>someone consciously deleted it (there was nothing to indicate this, and
>to this day there still isn't anything to indicate this to newbies, so
>the first impression is a technical glitch), I recreated it and
>subsequently received a warning of sorts.

A specific issue which should be addressed.  When recreating a
previously deleted article, I think the interface should say "are you
sure you want to create this, if was deleted on DDDD by X for reason
Y" or words to that effect.  I'm sure it would help.

Also, more of us (editors and admins) should userfy rather than
deleting non-notable  autobiographies, and maybe any vanity content. I
made {{nn-userfy}} for that,

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Neil Harris

subject:
[Wikitech-l] AOL proxies, etc. (re-sent,
 this time without the attachments)

body:
Edward Z. Yang wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I don't have the expertise to comment on the results, but I think that
> Brion fixed XFF headers during the MARMOT case.
>

If XFF is now operational on all AOL proxies, and WP is now configured
to trust the XFF headers, we should no longer see any edits as coming
from those proxies, since all edits should now be listed under the
originating IP address.

Can anyone confirm whether this is the case?

-- Neil


list: foundation-l

from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Foundation-l] re GFDL publisher credit

body:
Robert Scott Horning wrote:

>Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
>
>
>>The way it's worded in GPL2 (and GPL3) its ambiguous. I've also been
>>following the FSF and
>>their litigation strategy over the years, and to be honest they wilt
>>away like chaff in the wind
>>on a certain class of GPL violators -- big software companies who pinch
>>GPL code then use it.
>>
>>They onyl go after folks with little or no litigation resources. I Think
>>they know if this thing got in front
>>of a court and someone bankrolled 20 mil into costs, it may not stand up
>>... just a theory.
>>
I'm sure that there's a strong element of truth to this.  In the long
run tactics analogous to guerilla warfare tend to be more effective
against massive power.

>Of course the most famous court case for testing the GPL is SCO vs. IBM,
>where it was originally seen as a major test of the GPL (with IBM
>backing of the GPL in a weird twist of events).  Instead it looks as if
>the case is going to spin into a stock fraud case and turn from civil
>litigation into a criminal matter.  Where the SEC will take this, I'm
>not sure, but I'm certain that the GPL will be the least of the problems
>for the CEO of SCO.  This case did air out some of the legal issues
>regarding the GPL in court and did deal with many copyleft issues in
>general, but it doesn't look like the GPL will be significant for any
>precedence to use this case in future GPL-related litigation.
>
Sigh!  Stock fraud, the refuge of high quality scoundrels.

>I'm curious what other major copyright violators of the GPL that you are
>talking about that the FSF didn't litigate against?  The real issue that
>the FSF has been facing is that major violators of the GPL havn't
>necessarily been violating the use of GNU/Hurd software or anything else
>with a copyright claim by the FSF.  I guess this is another "class" of
>GPL violations, but if they don't have a copyright claim, the FSF can't
>really file as a plaintiff and enforce the copyright.  There is also the
>issue of statutory vs. actual damage claims that I raised earlier that
>also apply to software under the GPL, making even a positive judgement
>(for the GPL) something that is essentially a moot point and effectively
>unenforcable.
>
I agree, and GFDL hasn't been touched at all.  For the most part I think
that the strategic thinking necessary for dealing with these complex
issues is missing from WMF.  This is unfortunate because vested
interests are going to fight like hell to maintain their advantages,
even as the underlying social fabric of copyright is changing.  In the
nearly three centuries since Queen Anne's Law the ones who have had the
ears of the politicians have been the ones who stood to do well with
improved protections.  For most of that time those who would benefit
from any different were mostly scattered, and never in any position to
mount an effective lobby.

Perhaps WMF's greatest disadvantage is that it has become so big.  Being
big can mean having more to lose in a knock down legal street scrap.

Ec


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] re GFDL publisher credit


subject: [Foundation-l] re GFDL publisher credit

body:
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:

> "Free" is fine with me and I agree I don't
>think anyone cares
>about copyright issues on GFDL text.
>
I wouldn't be so sure of that.

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] re GFDL publisher credit


subject: [Foundation-l] re GFDL publisher credit

body:
James Hare wrote:

>It also should be noted we shouldn't have to inundate common people with
>complex logical arguments about something as boring as copyright law.
>
I don't find it boring.

>Jimmy Wales was from Alabama, he had a thirst for knowledge. He studied
>finance at Auburn University -- that's where options trading caught his
>eyes. After a bout of that and Internet porn, he realized: he wanted to live
>like common people; he wanted to live and drink with common people. So he
>decided to dump a lot of money in a website -for- the common people because
>he just liked it that much.
>
Bringing all the bio stuff up says more about you than about him.

>All in all, Wikipedia is for common people, and they'd prefer simple terms
>like "free encyclopedia" than "GFDL general and specialized knowledge
>provider licensed for free and educational use." Common people is what
>Wikipedia is all about.
>
That's very pious of you.

We still need to Free the Law.

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] re GFDL publisher credit


subject: [WikiEN-l] Joke

body:
On 7/17/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/17/06, maru dubshinki <marudubshinki at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Are there any extremely widely known offensive jokes such that their
> > > documentation by us wouldn't be offensive to anyone?
>
> Blonde jokes?  --LV
> _______________________________________________

Don't know if it was mentioned before in this thread. But accoding to this
news report http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/10/03/joke.funniest/,
the supposedly funniest joke is:

*Two hunters are out in the woods when one of them collapses. He doesn't
seem to be breathing and his eyes are glazed. The other guy takes out his
phone and calls the emergency services.*

*He gasps: "My friend is dead! What can I do?" The operator says: "Calm
down, I can help. First, let's make sure he's dead." There is a silence,
then a gunshot is heard. Back on the phone, the guy says: "OK, now what?"*

Garion


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Human dignity

body:
On Jul 17, 2006, at 8:09 PM, ScottL wrote:

>
> WARNING: topic drift
>
>    Without claiming that we should or should not have such a entry in
> those articles, I have for a long time been interested in looking
> through the DB dump for redirects to pages that do not contain the
> term
> being redirected to them, or something close.  Its the "or something
> close" and the fact that some times this is probably "ok" that
> makes it
> hard to just do this.  In any event I have frequently come across very
> bad redirects, some of them POV some of them I think people did
> just to
> avoid having a red link. Is there any sort of redirect auditing being
> done?  I can't say I know of a good way to go about it efficiently but
> its is worth thinking about.
>
> Dalf

Not on a regular basis, but as you find them, fix them. Nothing wrong
with a red link if there is no article on the subject.

Fred


from_name: Platonides

subject: [Wikitech-l] Ontology import

body:
It seems php is not being interpreted. Can you check ... ?

a) You do have php on the server (should be if you've mediawiki working)
b) The importing php script (the file which contains this code)
   -Can be run? (some servers may need execution access, though i doubt
that's the case, so check below)
   -Starts with <?php (if not is probably corrupted)
   -Is valid (hash check, redownload again, etc)

They're all quite obvious but i'd bet the file is corrupted

"Mei Wu" wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> I am trying to import Ontologies into Mediawiki. I downloaded a couple of
> ontologies from the web in .rdf format and imported them using the "Import
> ontologies" Special page. However, every time I hit Import an error
> message
> appears (see below).
> I am running MediaWiki 1.6.7 and SemanticMediaWiki extension 0.4.3.2. I
> also
> added the rdfapi-php to the SemanticMediaWiki "libs" folder. It looks like
> the .php script is not recognized but I do not really know what the
> problem
> is.
>
> Does anybody has experiences with importing ontologies and have an idea
> what
> the cause of this problem might be?
>
> Thank you very much!
>
> Best,
> Mei
>
> ------------------error
> message------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> * * @package sparql */ class SparqlClient extends Object { var $server;
> var
> $output; /** * Constructor of SparlClient. * * @param String $server
> server
> address. */ function SparqlClient($server){ $this->server = $server;
> $this->output = "array"; } /** * Sets the output format for a SELECT or
> ASK
> query. Possible formats are "xml" for * Sparql Query Results XML Format (
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-XMLres/) or array * for the format
> described
> in our SparqlEngine. * * @param String $format the format. */ function
> setOutputFormat($format){ if(strtolower($format)=="xml") $this->output =
> "xml"; if(strtolower($format)=="array") $this->output = "array"; } /** *
> Main function of SparqlClient. * * @param ClientQuery $query the
> ClientQuery
> object. * @return mixed returns an array that contains the variables an
> their bindings or a MemModel * */ function query($query){
> if(!is_a($query,"ClientQuery")) die;//ErrorHandling $url =
> $this->_buildurl($query); $result = $this->_http_get($url); return
> $this->returnResult($result); } /** * Helper function that builds the url.
> *
> * @param ClientQuery $query the ClientQuery Object. */ function
> _buildurl($query){ $url = ""; $url =
> $this->server."?query=".urlencode($query->query); foreach($query->default
> as
> $defaultg){ $url = $url."&default-graph-uri=".$defaultg; }
> foreach($query->named as $namedg){ $url =
> $url."&named-graph-uri=".$namedg;
> } return $url; } /** * Returns the query result. * * @param String $result
> the result. * @return mixed */ function returnResult($result){
> if(strpos($result,"generateModel(substr($result,strpos($result,"output ==
> "xml"){ $pos = strpos($result,"output == "array"){ // $pos =
> strpos($buffer,"parseResult($result); } return $result; } function
> parseResult($buffer){
> include(RDFAPI_INCLUDE_DIR.PACKAGE_SYNTAX_SPARQLRES);
> $parser = new SparqlResultParser(); return $parser->parse($buffer); } /**
> *
> Executes the GET Request. * * @param String $url the url. * @return String
> result. */ function _http_get($url) { $url = parse_url($url); $port =
> isset($url['port']) ? $url['port'] : 80; $fp = fsockopen($url['host'],
> $port); $replace = $url['path']; fputs($fp, "GET
> ".$replace."?".$url['query']." HTTP/1.0\n"); fputs($fp, "Host:".
> $url['host']." \r\n"); fputs($fp, "Accept: text/html \r\n"); fputs($fp,
> "Connection: close\n\n"); $buffer = ""; while ($tmp = fread($fp, 1024)) {
> $buffer .= $tmp; } // return $buffer; $pos = strpos($buffer," * * @package
> sparql */ class ClientQuery extends Object { var $default = array(); var
> $named = array(); var $prefixes = array(); var $query; /** * Adds a
> default
> graph to the query object. * * @param String $default default graph name
> */
> function addDefaultGraph($default){ if(!in_array($named,$this->default))
> $this->default[] = $default; } /** * Adds a named graph to the query
> object.
> * * @param String $default named graph name */ function
> addNamedGraph($named){ if(!in_array($named,$this->named)) $this->named[] =
> $named; } /** * Adds the SPARQL query string to the query object. * *
> @param
> String $query the query string */ function query($query){ $this->query =
> $query; } } ?>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------end
> error message---------------------------------


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [WikiEN-l] Human dignity

references:
<C0DD5CA1.128A6%travis@gpsports-eng.com>
	<44B82251.3020305@wikia.com> <44B83652.5080502@shaw.ca>
	<f30e42de0607150146i3efd211el3366dcde52ac1921@mail.gmail.com>
	<71cd4dd90607150706j622a44b4hf89e157a50ada3e1@mail.gmail.com>
	<44B99724.6000203@student.canberra.edu.au>
	<71cd4dd90607160553l4fe0a05bt517b2df272ad7a0a@mail.gmail.com>
	<ngrkb2daltlhu84nhph7cm8dpdc0o5k8mi@4ax.com>
	<f80608430607161001u4cef7ebdxeeca6b89c42442a1@mail.gmail.com>
	<q0tkb21rukdmdep48cko5popk9j2n3if5d@4ax.com>

body:
On 7/17/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 18:01:34 +0100, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Really?  How many?  Within ten percent or so.
> >About the same as Gandi:
> >http://www.google.com/trends?q=brian+peppers%2C+gandi&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all
>
> Trend seems downward. Let's see where that is in a year...

The curve looks like it will bottom out at almost zero by the end of
the year. So we'll really be able to state empirically that noone
cares about it on 21 February 2007.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Justin Cormack

subject: [WikiEN-l] Image statistics -- 374 000+ "fair use" images

body:
On 17 Jul 2006, at 21:37, Gregory Maxwell wrote:

>
> Sadily, although common's rules are more restrictive .. their overall
> enforcement is far more lax (at least past the initial upload). The
> problems with cross language cross project cooperation result in a lot
> of difficulty. :(

Well I feel this is partly because single signon has been discussed for
years now with as far as I can see no progress at all. And en has
kept its abysmal image situation going well with no attempt to fix it.
People like geni keep saying that once (years back) commons had its
front
page vandalised. Well en has had copyvio images in its featured
articles,
and its "fair use" images are a joke.

If all free images in en were on commons, we would all police it more,
and with single signon it would be easier, and things could be
transwikied.

Can we set a timetable for single signon?

Justinc


from_name: geni

body:
On 7/17/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/17/06, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
> > It's recommended but not required. There aren't many reasons left
> > to upload free images to en:, but there's some inertia resisting
> > the change. Plus, in the absence of single signon, it would result
> > in many more redundant logins to merge later, so my personal
> > inclination is not to press the issue until after single signon is
> > up and running.
>
> It's not so much "inertia resisting the change" as "difficulty
> migrating content to Commons". We don't even discourage people from
> uploading free content to en.wikipedia. Buried in a whole page of
> daunting instructions on the upload page is a note that "if you are
> uploading a file under a free license (not fair use!), consider
> uploading it to the Wikimedia Commons".

Well yes. While I may not entirely trust commons I fail to see what it
has done to deserve being on the reciveing end of en's image uploads.
I don't think anyone hates it that much.

--
geni


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] Things about admins

references:
<e98jf0$9c4$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<l3lfb2hms38p953ba8ao8hut6ki1f67qag@4ax.com>
	<e98l3m$eom$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<2lsfb2l3571cf9hi0s7odcnvc9liqv2glf@4ax.com>
	<e9gf9e$pbl$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<9ebd3d8551938c6950a606bb0b952a50@netwood.net>
	<b8ceeef70607171448j150cfdf6lb800ccf9fd92a668@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On 17/07/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/17/06, Jesse W <jessw at netwood.net> wrote:
>
> > Actually, now there *is* a nice, (hopefully) clear line in the message
> > that comes up when you go to a redlinked page, that says:
> > (paraphrasing) "If you expected a page to be here, it may be a database
> > delay, or it may have been deleted - click *here* to check the deletion
> > log, and *here* to see the discussion, if there was one."  So, while
>
> It says this:
>
> If you expected a page to be here, and it is not, the page may not yet
> be visible due to a delay in updating the database, or it may have
> been deleted. (See the criteria for speedy deletion for some possible
> reasons). Please try the purge function, check the deletion log and/or
> the deletion discussion page, and wait a few minutes before attempting
> to recreate this page.
>
> It could be clearer - these are really pretty exceptional
> circumstances after all. The "delay in updating the database" is
> almost unheard of. Something like this might be clearer:

I get a new page not "taking" immediately about half a percent of the
time, FWIW - haven't taken stats, but that number feels right. Tends
to come in waves.

(I create a lot of redirects...)

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


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 7/17/06, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
> I disagree - I think the WP community should keep the press
> accountable on how Wikipedia is reported. However, I do agree that
> critcism should be constructive, and not snarky and obnoxious, as
> comments on this list tend to be.

IMHO, snarky and obnoxious is fine for this list - even if it's
publicly readable, it's essentially an internal, private mailing list.
That is, statements on it should not be taken to reflect any broader
"on record" sentiment. The Wikipedia Signpost is a different matter.

> Take the latest [[Ken Lay]] debate. With wire outlets like Reuters,
> their story gets regurgitated in many different outlets - paper,
> online, television, radio, etc.  The media reports this as evidence
> that Wikipedia is in trouble. If the story is obviously inaccurate,
> they should be called on it.

Wikipedia-bashing is becoming more prevalent. The slightly tragic
thing is that its quality is obviously increasing greatly with each
passing year. However, its increasing popularity means that despite
that, the effect of increasing numbers of people coming into contact
with its deficiencies is that the general populace thinks it's getting
worse. If that makes sense.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Human dignity

body:
On 7/17/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> And it's not the way that I went.  I don't think any crime is
> sufficient to overcome one's right to privacy, at least to some
> extent.  I do think the crime Peppers is convicted of is sufficient,
> though.

Huh? Didn't he grope a nurse at his nursing home or something? Talk to
someone at works at these places, that's an everyday occurrence. Even
if he was a rapist or child molester, I don't see why his right to
privacy should necessarily be diminished - unless the Wikipedia
community takes it upon itself to decide that additional punishment
needs to be meted out to such people.

> Sure, and I think providing information about Brian Peppers does make
> the encyclopedia better.  But at the same time I think we have to
> consider personal privacy issues.  Both have to be present.  Articles
> have to make the encyclopedia better, but they also have to refrain
> from violating the privacy rights of the subject.

I don't think that writing "Brian Peppers was an internet meme due to
his oversized head" is violating his privacy. Naming the nursing home
where he lives or providing details on the offence he committed could
be.

Steve


body:
On 7/17/06, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
> It's recommended but not required. There aren't many reasons left
> to upload free images to en:, but there's some inertia resisting
> the change. Plus, in the absence of single signon, it would result
> in many more redundant logins to merge later, so my personal
> inclination is not to press the issue until after single signon is
> up and running.

It's not so much "inertia resisting the change" as "difficulty
migrating content to Commons". We don't even discourage people from
uploading free content to en.wikipedia. Buried in a whole page of
daunting instructions on the upload page is a note that "if you are
uploading a file under a free license (not fair use!), consider
uploading it to the Wikimedia Commons". Another obstacle is that the
descriptions of all the licences are totally different on Commons.

People would probably be happy to upload more to Commons if a) they
knew they should, and b) it was easier. Moving stuff from en to
Commons easily would be a big boost.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Things about admins

references:
<e98jf0$9c4$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<l3lfb2hms38p953ba8ao8hut6ki1f67qag@4ax.com>
	<e98l3m$eom$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<2lsfb2l3571cf9hi0s7odcnvc9liqv2glf@4ax.com>
	<e9gf9e$pbl$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<9ebd3d8551938c6950a606bb0b952a50@netwood.net>

body:
On 7/17/06, Jesse W <jessw at netwood.net> wrote:

> Actually, now there *is* a nice, (hopefully) clear line in the message
> that comes up when you go to a redlinked page, that says:
> (paraphrasing) "If you expected a page to be here, it may be a database
> delay, or it may have been deleted - click *here* to check the deletion
> log, and *here* to see the discussion, if there was one."  So, while

It says this:

If you expected a page to be here, and it is not, the page may not yet
be visible due to a delay in updating the database, or it may have
been deleted. (See the criteria for speedy deletion for some possible
reasons). Please try the purge function, check the deletion log and/or
the deletion discussion page, and wait a few minutes before attempting
to recreate this page.

It could be clearer - these are really pretty exceptional
circumstances after all. The "delay in updating the database" is
almost unheard of. Something like this might be clearer:

Are you pretty sure there was a page here? It could have been deleted
- click here to check. Or maybe there's a database problem - click
here to purge the cache page, then wait a bit.

Ideally, of course, the page would just tell you. "There's no page
here, but there was one deleted 18 hours ago.".

Steve


from_name: ScottL

subject: [WikiEN-l] Human dignity

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 7/18/06, ScottL <scott at mu.org> wrote:
>>   Without claiming that we should or should not have such a entry in
>> those articles, I have for a long time been interested in looking
>> through the DB dump for redirects to pages that do not contain the term
>> being redirected to them, or something close.  Its the "or something
>> close" and the fact that some times this is probably "ok" that makes it
>> hard to just do this.  In any event I have frequently come across very
>> bad redirects, some of them POV some of them I think people did just to
>> avoid having a red link. Is there any sort of redirect auditing being
>> done?  I can't say I know of a good way to go about it efficiently but
>> its is worth thinking about.
>
> A useful tool would be some javascript that shows you every redirect
> that links to each page that you visit, so any bad ones might jump out
> at you.
>
> Steve

   I like that idea.  My initial thought was a off line parsing of the
DB Dump for redirects that are not in whole or in part mentioned in the
target to the redirect.  But I (wildly and with no basis) estimated that
probably 50% of those or more would be perfectly acceptable redirects.
In such a case there would little hope get getting many editors involved
going thorough them looking fr the bad ones.

   Your suggestions is much better.  There are a number of other nifty
javascript things that could be done for the whatlinkshere page as well.
  *wanders off and ponders tinkering*

SKL


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-07-18

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

Running test Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)... FAILED!
Running test Template with thumb image (wiht link in description)... FAILED!
Running test message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test Language converter: output gets cut off unexpectedly (bug 5757)... FAILED!
Running test HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test Parsing optional HTML elements (Bug 6171)... FAILED!
Running test Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting... FAILED!
Running test Mixing markup for italics and bold... FAILED!
Running test 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line... FAILED!
Running test HTML Hex character encoding.... FAILED!
Running test dt/dd/dl test... FAILED!

Passed 409 of 426 tests (96.01%) FAILED!


from_name: Andrew Lih

body:
On 7/13/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with all of your points, but I think we should avoid pointing
> out every mistake the press makes when reporting us. This makes us
> seem slightly self-righteous and pig-headed. Sure, the mainstream
> press makes mistakes (my newspaper carries several corrections a day),
> but this doesn't remove from the validity of them, just as our
> mistakes don't remove (or shouldn't remove) from our validity.

I disagree - I think the WP community should keep the press
accountable on how Wikipedia is reported. However, I do agree that
critcism should be constructive, and not snarky and obnoxious, as
comments on this list tend to be.

Take the latest [[Ken Lay]] debate. With wire outlets like Reuters,
their story gets regurgitated in many different outlets - paper,
online, television, radio, etc.  The media reports this as evidence
that Wikipedia is in trouble. If the story is obviously inaccurate,
they should be called on it.

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)


from_name: Jeffrey V. Merkey

subject:
[Foundation-l] Native Cherokee Language Wikibooks and Wiktionary
 Posted for enwiki-20060702

body:
Translations posted based on enwiki-2060702 dumps.  Ttranslation rate at
99.1% completeness.

    * Native Cherokee Language Syllabary Website is at
      chr.wikigadugi.org <http://chr.wikigadugi.org>
    * Native Cherokee Language Phonetic WikiGadugi Website is at
      chrp.wikigadugi.org <http://chrp.wikigadugi.org>
    * Native Cherokee Language Syllabary Wikibooks translations at
      books.wikigadugi.org <http://books.wikigadugi.org>
    * Native Cherokee Language Phonetic Wikibooks translations at
      phbooks.wikigadugi.org <http://phbooks.wikigadugi.org>
    * Native Cherokee Language Syllabary Wiktionary translations at
      dictionary.wikigadugi.org <http://dictionary.wikigadugi.org>
    * Native Cherokee Language Phonetic Wiktionary translations at
      phdictionary.wikigadugi.org <http://phdictionary.wikigadugi.org>
    * XML dumps of the Native Cherokee Wikipedia Translations are at
      ftp.wikigadugi.org <ftp://ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki>
    * English Language WikiGadugi Website is at en.wikigadugi.org
      <http://en.wikigadugi.org>

XML Dumps posted at ftp.wikigadugi.org

File: cherokee-syntax-errors-20060607.txt.bz2
<ftp://ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki/xml/cherokee-syntax-errors-20060607.txt.bz2>
	2 KB 	06/23/2006 	11:24:00 PM
File: cherokee-syntax-errors-20060619.txt.bz2
<ftp://ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki/xml/cherokee-syntax-errors-20060619.txt.bz2>
	2 KB 	06/24/2006 	12:44:00 AM
File: cherokee-syntax-errors-20060702.txt.bz2
<ftp://ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki/xml/cherokee-syntax-errors-20060702.txt.bz2>
	2 KB 	07/04/2006 	01:12:00 AM
File: phwiki-20060607-pages-articles.xml.bz2
<ftp://ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki/xml/phwiki-20060607-pages-articles.xml.bz2>
	1530644 KB 	06/23/2006 	11:20:00 PM
File: phwiki-20060619-pages-articles.xml.bz2
<ftp://ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki/xml/phwiki-20060619-pages-articles.xml.bz2>
	1570369 KB 	06/24/2006 	03:18:00 AM
File: phwiki-20060702-pages-articles.xml.bz2
<ftp://ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki/xml/phwiki-20060702-pages-articles.xml.bz2>
	1618409 KB 	07/04/2006 	02:40:00 AM
File: phwikibooks-20060713-pages-articles.xml.bz2
<ftp://ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki/xml/phwikibooks-20060713-pages-articles.xml.bz2>
	29078 KB 	07/18/2006 	05:23:00 AM
File: phwiktionary-20060714-pages-articles.xml.bz2
<ftp://ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki/xml/phwiktionary-20060714-pages-articles.xml.bz2>
	31379 KB 	07/18/2006 	05:27:00 AM
File: sylwiki-20060607-pages-articles.xml.bz2
<ftp://ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki/xml/sylwiki-20060607-pages-articles.xml.bz2>
	1517820 KB 	07/09/2006 	01:33:00 AM
File: sylwiki-20060619-pages-articles.xml.bz2
<ftp://ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki/xml/sylwiki-20060619-pages-articles.xml.bz2>
	1557419 KB 	07/09/2006 	01:41:00 AM
File: sylwiki-20060702-pages-articles.xml.bz2
<ftp://ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki/xml/sylwiki-20060702-pages-articles.xml.bz2>
	1604903 KB 	07/07/2006 	06:58:00 AM
File: sylwikibooks-20060713-pages-articles.xml.bz2
<ftp://ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki/xml/sylwikibooks-20060713-pages-articles.xml.bz2>
	28426 KB 	07/18/2006 	05:24:00 AM
File: sylwiktionary-20060714-pages-articles.xml.bz2
<ftp://ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki/xml/sylwiktionary-20060714-pages-articles.xml.bz2>
	31035 KB 	07/18/2006 	05:28:00 AM
File: untranslated-log-20060607.txt.bz2
<ftp://ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki/xml/untranslated-log-20060607.txt.bz2>
8144 KB 	06/23/2006 	11:23:00 PM
File: untranslated-log-20060619.txt.bz2
<ftp://ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki/xml/untranslated-log-20060619.txt.bz2>
8271 KB 	06/24/2006 	03:04:00 AM
File: untranslated-log-20060702.txt.bz2
<ftp://ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki/xml/untranslated-log-20060702.txt.bz2>
10205 KB

Jeff


subject:
[Foundation-l] Native Cherokee Wikibooks/Wiktionary for
	enwiki-20060702

body:
Translations posted based on enwiki-2060702 dumps.  Translation rate at
99.1% completeness.

   * Native Cherokee Language Syllabary Website is at
     chr.wikigadugi.org <http://chr.wikigadugi.org>
   * Native Cherokee Language Phonetic WikiGadugi Website is at
     chrp.wikigadugi.org <http://chrp.wikigadugi.org>
   * Native Cherokee Language Syllabary Wikibooks translations at
     books.wikigadugi.org <http://books.wikigadugi.org>
   * Native Cherokee Language Phonetic Wikibooks translations at
     phbooks.wikigadugi.org <http://phbooks.wikigadugi.org>
   * Native Cherokee Language Syllabary Wiktionary translations at
     dictionary.wikigadugi.org <http://dictionary.wikigadugi.org>
   * Native Cherokee Language Phonetic Wiktionary translations at
     phdictionary.wikigadugi.org <http://phdictionary.wikigadugi.org>
   * XML dumps of the Native Cherokee Wikipedia Translations are at
     ftp.wikigadugi.org <ftp://ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki>
   * English Language WikiGadugi Website is at en.wikigadugi.org
     <http://en.wikigadugi.org>

XML Dumps posted at ftp.wikigadugi.org

File: cherokee-syntax-errors-20060607.txt.bz2
<ftp://ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki/xml/cherokee-syntax-errors-20060607.txt.bz2>
    2 KB     06/23/2006     11:24:00 PM
File: cherokee-syntax-errors-20060619.txt.bz2
<ftp://ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki/xml/cherokee-syntax-errors-20060619.txt.bz2>
    2 KB     06/24/2006     12:44:00 AM
File: cherokee-syntax-errors-20060702.txt.bz2
<ftp://ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki/xml/cherokee-syntax-errors-20060702.txt.bz2>
    2 KB     07/04/2006     01:12:00 AM
File: phwiki-20060607-pages-articles.xml.bz2
<ftp://ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki/xml/phwiki-20060607-pages-articles.xml.bz2>
    1530644 KB     06/23/2006     11:20:00 PM
File: phwiki-20060619-pages-articles.xml.bz2
<ftp://ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki/xml/phwiki-20060619-pages-articles.xml.bz2>
    1570369 KB     06/24/2006     03:18:00 AM
File: phwiki-20060702-pages-articles.xml.bz2
<ftp://ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki/xml/phwiki-20060702-pages-articles.xml.bz2>
    1618409 KB     07/04/2006     02:40:00 AM
File: phwikibooks-20060713-pages-articles.xml.bz2
<ftp://ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki/xml/phwikibooks-20060713-pages-articles.xml.bz2>
    29078 KB     07/18/2006     05:23:00 AM
File: phwiktionary-20060714-pages-articles.xml.bz2
<ftp://ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki/xml/phwiktionary-20060714-pages-articles.xml.bz2>
    31379 KB     07/18/2006     05:27:00 AM
File: sylwiki-20060607-pages-articles.xml.bz2
<ftp://ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki/xml/sylwiki-20060607-pages-articles.xml.bz2>
    1517820 KB     07/09/2006     01:33:00 AM
File: sylwiki-20060619-pages-articles.xml.bz2
<ftp://ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki/xml/sylwiki-20060619-pages-articles.xml.bz2>
    1557419 KB     07/09/2006     01:41:00 AM
File: sylwiki-20060702-pages-articles.xml.bz2
<ftp://ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki/xml/sylwiki-20060702-pages-articles.xml.bz2>
    1604903 KB     07/07/2006     06:58:00 AM
File: sylwikibooks-20060713-pages-articles.xml.bz2
<ftp://ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki/xml/sylwikibooks-20060713-pages-articles.xml.bz2>
    28426 KB     07/18/2006     05:24:00 AM
File: sylwiktionary-20060714-pages-articles.xml.bz2
<ftp://ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki/xml/sylwiktionary-20060714-pages-articles.xml.bz2>
    31035 KB     07/18/2006     05:28:00 AM
File: untranslated-log-20060607.txt.bz2
<ftp://ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki/xml/untranslated-log-20060607.txt.bz2>
8144 KB     06/23/2006     11:23:00 PM
File: untranslated-log-20060619.txt.bz2
<ftp://ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki/xml/untranslated-log-20060619.txt.bz2>
8271 KB     06/24/2006     03:04:00 AM
File: untranslated-log-20060702.txt.bz2
<ftp://ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki/xml/untranslated-log-20060702.txt.bz2>
10205 KB


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] Languages*.php/Messages*.php proposed changes

body:
Evan Prodromou wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-17-07 at 16:45 +1000, Tim Starling wrote:
>
>
>> I've already done most of the technical work for this change, including
>> converting three languages as a pilot. Most of what remains is the rote work
>> of converting all of the language files.
>
> Ugh. That is a lot of tedious rote work. Are the advantages of this new
> system worth the work and the instability?

Yes. The language files as they stand are very difficult to maintain. There
are so many ugly hacks, so many designs and programming styles, so many
complex functions copied and pasted with a minor change. Separating the data
from the code will pay dividends in the long term. It's only a few days'
work anyway.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Ilmari Karonen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Things about admins

references:
<e98jf0$9c4$1@sea.gmane.org>	<l3lfb2hms38p953ba8ao8hut6ki1f67qag@4ax.com>	<e98l3m$eom$1@sea.gmane.org>	<2lsfb2l3571cf9hi0s7odcnvc9liqv2glf@4ax.com>	<e9gf9e$pbl$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<9ebd3d8551938c6950a606bb0b952a50@netwood.net>

body:
Jesse W wrote:
>
> Actually, now there *is* a nice, (hopefully) clear line in the message
> that comes up when you go to a redlinked page, that says:
> (paraphrasing) "If you expected a page to be here, it may be a database
> delay, or it may have been deleted - click *here* to check the deletion
> log, and *here* to see the discussion, if there was one."

It _is_ pretty easy to gloss over, though.  JzG's suggestion of an
additional notice is a good one, and I may go and implement something
like that soon.  Perhaps a note on the edit page, a bit like the "you
are editing an old version" notice.

--
Ilmari Karonen


from_name: Anthony

subject: [WikiEN-l] Human dignity

body:
On 7/17/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/17/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > And it's not the way that I went.  I don't think any crime is
> > sufficient to overcome one's right to privacy, at least to some
> > extent.  I do think the crime Peppers is convicted of is sufficient,
> > though.
>
> Huh? Didn't he grope a nurse at his nursing home or something? Talk to
> someone at works at these places, that's an everyday occurrence.

If it's an everyday occurrence, then do you really think that's what happened?

The person who made up the story about Peppers accidently groping a
nurse has admitted that it was a hoax.

> Even if he was a rapist or child molester, I don't see why his right to
> privacy should necessarily be diminished - unless the Wikipedia
> community takes it upon itself to decide that additional punishment
> needs to be meted out to such people.
>
So why don't we delete [[John Couey]] and all the others in
[[Category:Convicted child sex offenders]]?  Are we punishing them?

In fact, who *can* we have an article about?  Only people who give us
permission?  Or are there some people we're allowed to punish?

> > Sure, and I think providing information about Brian Peppers does make
> > the encyclopedia better.  But at the same time I think we have to
> > consider personal privacy issues.  Both have to be present.  Articles
> > have to make the encyclopedia better, but they also have to refrain
> > from violating the privacy rights of the subject.
>
> I don't think that writing "Brian Peppers was an internet meme due to
> his oversized head" is violating his privacy. Naming the nursing home
> where he lives or providing details on the offence he committed could
> be.
>
I don't think there's any reason to name which nursing home he lives
at, of course this information is relatively easy to find anyway.

As for providing details on the offence he committed, I most certainly
don't think that's a violation of his privacy.

Anthony


from_name: Sydney aka FloNight

subject: [WikiEN-l] Human dignity

body:
---- Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 7/17/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/17/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > > And it's not the way that I went.  I don't think any crime is
> > > sufficient to overcome one's right to privacy, at least to some
> > > extent.  I do think the crime Peppers is convicted of is sufficient,
> > > though.
> >
> > Huh? Didn't he grope a nurse at his nursing home or something? Talk to
> > someone at works at these places, that's an everyday occurrence.
>
> If it's an everyday occurrence, then do you really think that's what happened?
>
> The person who made up the story about Peppers accidently groping a
> nurse has admitted that it was a hoax.
>
> > Even if he was a rapist or child molester, I don't see why his right to
> > privacy should necessarily be diminished - unless the Wikipedia
> > community takes it upon itself to decide that additional punishment
> > needs to be meted out to such people.
> >
> So why don't we delete [[John Couey]] and all the others in
> [[Category:Convicted child sex offenders]]?  Are we punishing them?
>
> In fact, who *can* we have an article about?  Only people who give us
> permission?  Or are there some people we're allowed to punish?
>
> > > Sure, and I think providing information about Brian Peppers does make
> > > the encyclopedia better.  But at the same time I think we have to
> > > consider personal privacy issues.  Both have to be present.  Articles
> > > have to make the encyclopedia better, but they also have to refrain
> > > from violating the privacy rights of the subject.
> >
> > I don't think that writing "Brian Peppers was an internet meme due to
> > his oversized head" is violating his privacy. Naming the nursing home
> > where he lives or providing details on the offence he committed could
> > be.
> >
> I don't think there's any reason to name which nursing home he lives
> at, of course this information is relatively easy to find anyway.
>
> As for providing details on the offence he committed, I most certainly
> don't think that's a violation of his privacy.
>
> Anthony

Anthony,

According to my interpretation of our guidelines, there should not be any articles on individuals because they are child sex offenders. There needs to be some other reason for their notability. I've not looked at these categories for a few months. When I was regularly checking these categories, our articles followed WP:BLP. Meaning that indiviuals that were notable but non-public figures were not included in the category.

Sydney


from_name: valdelli at bluemail.ch

subject: [Foundation-l] ..

body:
It could be... nothing else to do?

Ilario

----Messaggio originale----
Da: messedrocker at gmail.com
Data: 17.07.2006 7.34
A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] ..

It's incredible how much conversation there is sorrounding a blank
message.

On 7/17/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com>
wrote:
>


subject: [Foundation-l] ..


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Human dignity

body:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:39:00 +0200, "Steve Bennett"
<stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

>Huh? Didn't he grope a nurse at his nursing home or something?

We have no idea, there are no reliable sources.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [WikiEN-l] Human dignity

body:
On 7/17/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> For me, the amusement at the cute story (woman calls 911 to ask for a
> date) was seriously impaired by my distaste for the fact that this poor
> woman's name was being brought into the matter globally and on the
> Internet and against her will, in a way that makes it somewhat likely
> that future googling on her name for the next 30 years will bring this
> incident, and only this incident, to the forefront.
>
You know, when you put it that way, maybe it would be better if this
woman had a Wikipedia article.  At least then Wikipedia could do a
better job than the average newspaper story.

[snip to another email]

> I think taking into account human dignity as one factor among many in
> our editorial judgments can go either way depending on the specific
> case.  In the case of Brian Peppers, there is certainly a good argument
> to be made that having a thoughtful, NPOV article about him, including
> as much verifiable information as possible, can be a healthy antidote to
> the juvenile mocking we have seen in this meme.

Absolutely.  Of course that can't happen as long as the system
continues to be overriden by your edict.  And no, don't bring up that
there was already an AfD - that AfD was on completely different
content from the new article.

> In other cases, I think that human dignity points us in the other
> direction.  The fellow in the Seigenthaler incident does not deserve to
> have a standalone article about him with this one tiny fact of what is
> likely an otherwise exemplary life turned into the #1 google hit for the
> rest of all time.  (I think the current solution is fine, by the way:
> the article about him is redirected into the Seigenthaler incident
> article, therefore reporting the context.)

Chase is a much better example than the other two.  But you know what,
the current solution is terrible when it comes to what you're calling
"human dignity".  If it wasn't for Wikipedia mentioning his name and
making that redirect, the guy wouldn't have *any* hits on Google.

Frankly, his name is irrelevant, even if you do think that [[John
Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy]] is a valid
encyclopedia topic.

If we want to be decent, and respect the guy's privacy, let's take his
name out of Wikipedia completely.  The one line description of him
that's currently on his article (a disambig page) literally *is* one
tiny fact out of his life.  Sure, someone doing more research would
still be able to find out the name, but it won't be in the top google
hit.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] Human dignity

body:
On 7/18/06, ScottL <scott at mu.org> wrote:
>   Without claiming that we should or should not have such a entry in
> those articles, I have for a long time been interested in looking
> through the DB dump for redirects to pages that do not contain the term
> being redirected to them, or something close.  Its the "or something
> close" and the fact that some times this is probably "ok" that makes it
> hard to just do this.  In any event I have frequently come across very
> bad redirects, some of them POV some of them I think people did just to
> avoid having a red link. Is there any sort of redirect auditing being
> done?  I can't say I know of a good way to go about it efficiently but
> its is worth thinking about.

A useful tool would be some javascript that shows you every redirect
that links to each page that you visit, so any bad ones might jump out
at you.

Steve


from_name: Eric R. Meyers

subject: [Foundation-l] ..

body:
I offer you a tangent:

How about a "very blank" Perl Wiki structure?  I'm basically still all alone
here at the http://perl.wikia.com that Angela had setup for me, except for
one other person name User:Ahy1 that has started to help me out a little bit.
Basically I've been temporarily censured by the Perl Wikipedians at
Talk:Perl#The Perl Wiki in Wikia, because I have an underdeveloped wiki that
doesn't deserve a link in the Wikipedia Perl article to help the little wiki
grow and develop.  And User:RandalSchwartz has signed up at The Perl Wiki,
but this very famous Perl author won't talk with me, nor provide some of his
leadership capacity.

On Tuesday 18 July 2006 08:25, Oldak Quill wrote:
> I'm not so sure. There's only so much one (or all) can say about a
> blank message. The only chance for the continuation of this thread
> would be some kind of tangent. Open source and spam have been
> mentioned, but no one took the bait. So, what will it be?
>

I hope you guys bite into this hook.

Wikia:c:Perl:User:Ermeyers
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060718/d6e69175/attachment.pgp


subject: [Foundation-l] ..

body:
I offer you a tangent:

How about a "very blank" Perl Wiki structure?  I'm basically still all alone
here at the http://perl.wikia.com that Angela had setup for me, except for
one other person name User:Ahy1 that has started to help me out a little bit.
Basically I've been temporarily censured by the Perl Wikipedians at
Talk:Perl#The Perl Wiki in Wikia, because I have an underdeveloped wiki that
doesn't deserve a link in the Wikipedia Perl article to help the little wiki
grow and develop.  And User:RandalSchwartz has signed up at The Perl Wiki,
but this very famous Perl author won't talk with me, nor provide some of his
leadership capacity.

On Tuesday 18 July 2006 08:25, Oldak Quill wrote:
> I'm not so sure. There's only so much one (or all) can say about a
> blank message. The only chance for the continuation of this thread
> would be some kind of tangent. Open source and spam have been
> mentioned, but no one took the bait. So, what will it be?
>

I hope you guys bite into this hook.

Wikia:c:Perl:User:Ermeyers
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060718/d6e69175/attachment-0001.pgp


subject: [Foundation-l] ..

body:
I offer you a tangent:

How about a "very blank" Perl Wiki structure?  I'm basically still all alone
here at the http://perl.wikia.com that Angela had setup for me, except for
one other person name User:Ahy1 that has started to help me out a little bit.
Basically I've been temporarily censured by the Perl Wikipedians at
Talk:Perl#The Perl Wiki in Wikia, because I have an underdeveloped wiki that
doesn't deserve a link in the Wikipedia Perl article to help the little wiki
grow and develop.  And User:RandalSchwartz has signed up at The Perl Wiki,
but this very famous Perl author won't talk with me, nor provide some of his
leadership capacity.

On Tuesday 18 July 2006 08:25, Oldak Quill wrote:
> I'm not so sure. There's only so much one (or all) can say about a
> blank message. The only chance for the continuation of this thread
> would be some kind of tangent. Open source and spam have been
> mentioned, but no one took the bait. So, what will it be?
>

I hope you guys bite into this hook.

Wikia:c:Perl:User:Ermeyers
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060718/d6e69175/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Foundation-l] ..

body:
I offer you a tangent:

How about a "very blank" Perl Wiki structure?  I'm basically still all alone
here at the http://perl.wikia.com that Angela had setup for me, except for
one other person name User:Ahy1 that has started to help me out a little bit.
Basically I've been temporarily censured by the Perl Wikipedians at
Talk:Perl#The Perl Wiki in Wikia, because I have an underdeveloped wiki that
doesn't deserve a link in the Wikipedia Perl article to help the little wiki
grow and develop.  And User:RandalSchwartz has signed up at The Perl Wiki,
but this very famous Perl author won't talk with me, nor provide some of his
leadership capacity.

On Tuesday 18 July 2006 08:25, Oldak Quill wrote:
> I'm not so sure. There's only so much one (or all) can say about a
> blank message. The only chance for the continuation of this thread
> would be some kind of tangent. Open source and spam have been
> mentioned, but no one took the bait. So, what will it be?
>

I hope you guys bite into this hook.

Wikia:c:Perl:User:Ermeyers
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060718/d6e69175/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: Sean Whitton

subject: [Foundation-l] ..

body:
It's not unpleasant, this little conversation. We could keep going.

On 18/07/06, valdelli at bluemail.ch <valdelli at bluemail.ch> wrote:
> It could be... nothing else to do?
>
> Ilario
>
> ----Messaggio originale----
> Da: messedrocker at gmail.com
> Data: 17.07.2006 7.34
> A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] ..
>
> It's incredible how much conversation there is sorrounding a blank
> message.
>
> On 7/17/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com>
> wrote:
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
	?Xyrael ~ <xyr>
		sean at silentflame.com | xyrael.net


subject: [Foundation-l] ..


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 7/17/06, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Take the latest [[Ken Lay]] debate. With wire outlets like Reuters,
>>their story gets regurgitated in many different outlets - paper,
>>online, television, radio, etc.  The media reports this as evidence
>>that Wikipedia is in trouble. If the story is obviously inaccurate,
>>they should be called on it.
>>
>>
>Wikipedia-bashing is becoming more prevalent. The slightly tragic
>thing is that its quality is obviously increasing greatly with each
>passing year. However, its increasing popularity means that despite
>that, the effect of increasing numbers of people coming into contact
>with its deficiencies is that the general populace thinks it's getting
>worse. If that makes sense.
>
It's the price of being big.

Ec


from_name: Brian Salter-Duke

subject: [WikiEN-l] Borderline notable bios (yes, again)

body:
My response below appeared very belated as I realised after sending it
that it woudl go to moderation as I had changed my e-mail address. It is
of course now old news as the AfD on Angela's article has been closed as
no consensus - keep.

This debate had lead me to reconsider my position. I really do not see
why we should not delete articles on living persons if they request it
and if they have not put themself firmly into the public domain, such as
standing for office. Starting a company is not putting yourself into the
public domain. It is the company that may deserve an article and the
people who founded it should be mentioned. But that does not imply that
we should breach their privacy by a full article on the founders.
Getting elected to the Royal Society or similar is not pushing yourself
into the public domain. Such a person might be mentioned on an article
that explained the advance that lead to their election to the RS, but
if they do not want a full bio, we should not write one. Privacy is very
important.

We are not writing an encyclopedia overnight. If a person is really
notable, an article can be added later, possibly after their death, if
they persit in requesting that there be no article in their lifetime.

I do not think this course of action is out of line. For example, I
think "Who's Who" does not force an entry on someone who does not want
one. They do not argue that someone is notable and people have a right
to find out about them whether the person wants this or not. I think
there is a terrible arrogance about forcing a WP article on someone who
does not want their privacy breached in this way.

I understand that my approach is very close to the Japan WP approach
that I asked about at the end. I think it should be followed up and
implemented in the en WP.

Apologies for top posting. I do not normally top post, but I am not
specifically addressing the issues in the post below, just following up
rather late.

Brian.

On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 08:54:56AM +1000, Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 11:21:21PM +0100, Andrew Gray wrote:
> > On 12/07/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> >
> > >There is a problem with two relatively tiny groups of people that should
> > >be at least mentioned here.
> > >
> > >First, there are the Wikipedia lovers who insist that everything about
> > >Wikipedia is super duper important and who love to fill Wikipedia with
> > >Wikipedia fan cruft *and* to work really hard to look up negative
> > >information about anyone who has ever been hostile to Wikipedia. ...
> >
> > "It's true so we should have it in and who are you to say otherwise
> > and you're just deleting information and... they *asked* for deletion?
> > OMG CENSORSHIP"
> >
> > This is a slightly hyperbolic paraphrase, but a true one. People get
> > insanely twitchy if they think something is removed by request; they
> > *asked* us to remove it? that means they don't want people to know it!
> > it must be important! we must fight to keep it!
> >
> > I've encountered this quite a few times. It seems to be a cultural
> > thing - I don't think I'd be wrong to guess it's a much more common
> > attitude among Americans than Europeans, and among a certain type of
> > them. There's not much we can do except be tactful and occasionally
> > wield the Big Stick Of Editorial Common Sense.
>
> Maybe that explains why I'm puzzled by this discussion, being a Brit now
> in Australia. We are not trying to write an encyclopedia overnight. If
> someone does not want an article on them, then I think we should be
> inclined to delete it. The times when we do not delete should be where
> the person has put themselves into the public limelight and people will
> want to know about them. We do not therefore delete [[George W. Bush]]
> or any politician. However people who found businesses or are VPs of
> businesses are entitled to privacy. Our readers do not have to be able
> to find information about them on WP.
>
> Having meet Angela at a couple of Melbourne meetups, although we have
> not discussed her article, I understand why she wants it to go. I'm
> about to move over to Afd to state my opinion.
>
> > "No, the names of his four-year-old twin daughters are not notable.
> > Yes, they're verifiable if you go and... oh, you did go and look up
> > the county registers did you? That's nice. But it's not important. It
> > causes the guy undue distress, and our readers don't need to know it."
> >
> > I mean, trivia stuff. I've seen a few requests on OTRS from people
> > saying things like "I guess you have an article on me, and that's
> > fair, but can you take out the fact that I was born on September 2nd
> > and just have it say 1958?" Or the seemingly inexhaustible list of
> > minor porn starlets who, quite justifiably, write to us and say "your
> > article on me has my real name! take it out! I'm scared!"... Articles
> > are filling up with information that is, at best, borderline trivia
> > (and at worst actively stupid), and we have a (default?) culture that
> > seems to encourage adding it.
> >
> > There are times that I think adopting the rule jp.wiki has on
> > biographies would be a damn good idea...
>
> Could you tell us what this rule is or where to find it written in
> english?
>
> > --
> > - Andrew Gray
> >  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
> > End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 36, Issue 32
> > ****************************************
>
> --
>           Brian Salter-Duke            b_duke at bigpond.net.au
>                [[User:Bduke]]  mainly on en:Wikipedia.
>  Also on fr: Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki, WikiNews, WikiBooks and Commons
>
>
>
> ------------------------------

--
Brian Salter-Duke (Brian Duke) b_duke at bigbond.net.au - NB New! Old still works
       Post: 626 Melbourne Rd, Spotswood, VIC, 3015, Australia
 Phone 03-93992847. http://www.salter-duke.bigpondhosting.com/brian/index.htm
    Honorary Researcher Fellow, Dept. of Medicinal Chemistry, Monash Univ.


from_name: Neil Harris

subject: [WikiEN-l] Persondata?

body:
Sydney aka FloNight wrote:
> --- Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I would say that most of the very basic data persondata is concerned with is
>> largely correct. I have found that simple things like birth and death dates
>> are usually correct. However, since this tool is human mediated, it may be a
>> good opportunity to verify basic information provided by many of our
>> biographies.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
> Sydney
>
>
>
"Usually" is right. However, using the interwiki-linking tool, I have
seen a surprising number of articles where one or more element of the
date or birth or death is either subtly off (different month or date,
rarely both), or sometimes off by several years.

I wonder if it would be possible to automate the process of checking
date discrepancies, since there are only a limited number of date
formats used in each language, and many articles are already tagged by
(assumed) birth and death year, even in Wikipedia editions which do not
use persondata?

-- Neil


subject: [WikiEN-l] Human dignity (warning: verbosity follows...)

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Joseph Hiegel wrote:
>
>
>>As [[WP:POLICY]] makes well clear, the nature of the wiki is such
>>that nothing is immutable; were most frequent contributors, for
>>example, to determine that we should no longer require
>>[[WP:V|verifiability]], it's likely that Wikipedia would (d)evolve in
>>a fashion consistent with community consensus (surely Jimbo would
>>consider whether to jump in at this point, but I think even he would
>>concede that his capabilities to act unilaterally contrary to an
>>evident consensus are somewhat limited and that, in any case, the
>>community would look with strong disfavor on such unilateral action),
>>
>>
>Actually, I consider WP:V to be so central to Wikipedia that if there
>were ever a significant majority of contributors who wanted to do away
>with it, we would have an internal war on our hands that would make the
>userbox wars look simple by comparison.
>
There can be no serious argument against the concept of verifiability,
but verifiability standards can vary according to the subject matter.
To be sure the standards must be highest when we are dealing with the
biography of a living person.  For the walk through of a video game or
the plot outline of a movie the game or the movie itself should be
adequate verification.

>The important thing to remember
>here is that merely existing and typing in a web form does not make one
>a Wikipedian.  The community is defined by the goal of the community,
>and people... no matter how numerous or vocal... who do not accept that
>goal are not a part of the Wikipedia community.
>
>But on finer grained issues of editorial judgments, another core
>principle of Wikipedia is a strong embrace of a diversity of opinion.
>Some editors may consider human dignity to be an entirely pointless
>factor, while other may give it a fairly high weight.  We can live in
>harmony with such differences of opinion, and we can have a healthy give
>and take and rational discussion about specific cases.
>
Superficially "human dignity" is a fine standard, but like notability it
is a subjective standard.  This makes it difficult to narrow the scope
of its application.

Ec


from_name: Mark Wagner

subject: [WikiEN-l] OT question about spam

body:
On 7/18/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry for this totally off topic question about spam, but there seem
> to be some pretty cluey people on this list.
>
> In the last couple of months, I've been getting a lot of email replies
> to emails I never sent, including a lot of spam challenge-responses
> and a few "I'm out of the office" type messages. I have two theories:
> * I have some malware on my computer sending out emails.
> * Someone is forging mails with my address as the sender.

A common technique with spam, and even more so with viruses, is to
forge the "from" address.  This serves the double purpose of hiding
the true source of the email, and maybe hitting a "from" address that
will let the email through the recipient's filters.  If this is done
to flood a user's mail system, or to defame them, it's known as a
[[Joe job]].

> I should point out that any mail at the stevage.com domain gets to me,
> so quite a few messages are addressed to asdfdasd at stevage.com etc.

That's a result of "dictionary spamming": a spam program takes a
dictionary of common usernames and a domain name, and puts them
together to try to guess valid email addresses.

Amazingly, the article on [[E-mail spam]] doesn't have much coverage
of this.  If someone can come up with a good source, it should be
added.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


from_name: Samuel Klein

subject: [Foundation-l] ..

body:
'''Tofu''' is a fruit.

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006, Delphine M?nard wrote:

> I don't like [[Tofu]] all that much.
>
> On 7/18/06, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler at gmail.com> wrote:
>> We could start a nice ToFU discussion...
>>
>> On 7/18/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'm not so sure. There's only so much one (or all) can say about a
>>> blank message. The only chance for the continuation of this thread
>>> would be some kind of tangent. Open source and spam have been
>>> mentioned, but no one took the bait. So, what will it be?
>>>
>>> On 18/07/06, Sean Whitton <sean at silentflame.com> wrote:
>>>> It's not unpleasant, this little conversation. We could keep going.
>>>>
>>>> On 18/07/06, valdelli at bluemail.ch <valdelli at bluemail.ch> wrote:
>>>>> It could be... nothing else to do?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ilario
>>>>>
>>>>> ----Messaggio originale----
>>>>> Da: messedrocker at gmail.com
>>>>> Data: 17.07.2006 7.34
>>>>> A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>>>>> Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] ..
>>>>>
>>>>> It's incredible how much conversation there is sorrounding a blank
>>>>> message.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/17/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>>>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>         ?Xyrael ~ <xyr>
>>>>                 sean at silentflame.com | xyrael.net
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
> Delphine
> --
> ~notafish
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] ..


from_name: Fastfission

body:
On 7/17/06, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
> It's recommended but not required. There aren't many reasons left
> to upload free images to en:, but there's some inertia resisting
> the change. Plus, in the absence of single signon, it would result
> in many more redundant logins to merge later, so my personal
> inclination is not to press the issue until after single signon is
> up and running.

There's so much benefit to uploading them to Commons (improving the
status of Commons as a free repository, getting images used across all
of the Wikipedias, etc.), it seems almost criminal to not upload them
there.

> There have been some criticism of commons policy, but I attribute
> that to commons being genuinely multinational. For instance,
> en: and de: WP editors are mostly happily unaware of their differing
> practices, but on commons they can end up butting heads over how
> to handle a shared image.

That's my take on it too. Something which seems quite natural to a
bunch of US editors, steeped in US copyright notions and law, can
often be quite complicated when introduced into a more international
forum, without even taking into account language differences. But it
generally works out, eventually.

FF


from_name: Adam Lorenz

body:
We have to remember that US copyright laws always apply because of the
physical location of the servers and Wikimedia.

Adam

On 7/18/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/17/06, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
> > It's recommended but not required. There aren't many reasons left
> > to upload free images to en:, but there's some inertia resisting
> > the change. Plus, in the absence of single signon, it would result
> > in many more redundant logins to merge later, so my personal
> > inclination is not to press the issue until after single signon is
> > up and running.
>
> There's so much benefit to uploading them to Commons (improving the
> status of Commons as a free repository, getting images used across all
> of the Wikipedias, etc.), it seems almost criminal to not upload them
> there.
>
> > There have been some criticism of commons policy, but I attribute
> > that to commons being genuinely multinational. For instance,
> > en: and de: WP editors are mostly happily unaware of their differing
> > practices, but on commons they can end up butting heads over how
> > to handle a shared image.
>
> That's my take on it too. Something which seems quite natural to a
> bunch of US editors, steeped in US copyright notions and law, can
> often be quite complicated when introduced into a more international
> forum, without even taking into account language differences. But it
> generally works out, eventually.
>
> FF
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Adam J. Lorenz


from_name: Death Phoenix

subject: [WikiEN-l] Joke

body:
On 7/17/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/17/06, maru dubshinki <marudubshinki at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Are there any extremely widely known offensive jokes such that their
> > > documentation by us wouldn't be offensive to anyone?
>
> Blonde jokes?  --LV
>

That would be offensive to blondes. ;-)


subject: [Foundation-l] ..

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting

Ilario

----Messaggio originale----
Da: oldakquill at gmail.com
Data: 18.07.06 14.46
A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] ..

What is this "ToFU discussion"? The only tofu I know about is the
coagulated soy milk...

On 18/07/06, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler at gmail.com> wrote:
> We could start a nice ToFU discussion...
>


subject: [Foundation-l] ..


from_name: Oldak Quill

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is forever.

body:
I think it is more to do with Wikipedia's ability to adapt and change
with developing technology. If Encyclopedia Britannica had created a
wiki back in 2000, Wikipedia may not exist and Britannica would have
extended their lifetime by a few decades.

As long as we are willing to embrace changes and developments (such
as, at the moment, Wiktionary Z and Semantic MediaWiki) and don't
object for reasons of familiarity, we should do fine.

On 16/07/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
> The Encyclopaedia Britannica As We Know It has existed from, say, the
> ninth edition (1889) to the present, and is probably in sharp decline
> now. Let's say it's had about a 150-year life. I don't think it has
> another twenty years in it. And I don't think the Boston Globe will
> be available as smudgy ink on pulp paper delivered to front porches
> in twenty years, either...
>
> The slide rule as we know it--as a working tool for engineers--lasted
> from about 1860 into the 1970s... a bit over a century.
>
> Carbon paper... didn't really come into its own until the invention
> of the typewriter... it's lasted a bit over a century, too.
>
> "New media" though, have had a shorter life.
>
> The text adventure game: Colossal Cave, early 1970s, to about 1990
> and the folding of Infocom. About twenty years?
>
> The soap opera: 1930 to present. The _radio_ soap opera, though,
> obviously had a much shorter life. Thirty years?
>
> Wikipedia is much harder to predict, though, because it is changing
> over time and will continue to do so. I'd give good odds that ten
> years from now there will be a recognizable "website" on something
> called the "Internet" named "Wikipedia" that will be an online
> encyclopedia, but I wouldn't bet that its culture and policies will
> be closely similar to those in existence today.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is forever.

body:
This isn't how technology appears to develop (see the exponential view
of history). The difference between 1000 and 2000 will equal the
difference between 2000 and 2020 (for example).
On 15/07/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/15/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> > This is an interesting line of discussion... Just what does everybody
> > think is likely to be the future of Wikipedia in ten, one hundred,
> > one thousand, ... years?
>
> 1,000 years is too far in the future to judge anything. If there
> difference between 1000 AD and 2000 AD is any sort of barometer, 2006
> will look pretty distant to 3006, not only technologically, but
> politically, nationally, globally, etc.
>
> 100 years is the difference between 1900 and 2000. Again, pretty hard
> to judge. But here we do have some institutions and regularly-produced
> documents that can be a sort of barometer. Encyclopedia Brittanica is
> the most useful analog to what we are talking about, and it is three
> hundred years old. But even just looking back to the 1911 edition,
> while some of the content is useful to use in 2006, much of it would
> now be seen as not only out-of-date in the type of knowledge which
> would be most expected to "age" (i.e. scientific knowledge) but even
> things which would not even be assumed to "age" quite as much are
> often pretty questionable (historigraphical method, for example, has
> changed considerably, and it is hard to even tell the same story about
> the same facts as one would a hundred years ago). But OK, even then,
> that's a pretty good aspiration -- the 1911 serves as a base for a new
> project, with new methods, and it does so primarily because it
> currently exists in a very open copyright context (i.e. it is public
> domain). Wikipedia's copyright context has been more-or-less open from
> the beginning (the "more-or-less" reflects my own uneasiness with the
> actual implementation of the GFDL, not its goals), though the
> free-content movement is so young that it is hard to know what the
> long-term effects will be (it may be that it effectively renders the
> content unusable, because it may be less commercially viable to use
> viral marketing, as one potential economic reason that it might not
> take off in the way the advocates would expect).
>
> The technology used to construct it will surely be out of date in 100
> years, if not 5 or 10. The World Wide Web dates only from the early
> 1990s, let us not forget, and Wiki technology is even younger than
> that. If the technology and information-production model is *not*
> out-of-date within the decade, it will be somewhat depressing.
>
> Another view might be that the essence of Wiki technology -- communal
> editing -- could very well spread to many different aspects of
> internet usage. Wikipedia's "edit this page" could become a lot less
> special, and Wikipedia could lose out among all of the potential uses
> of people's time. That's not necessarily a bad thing.
>
> Personally I think the long-term prospects of Wikipedia are probably
> better than most websites, but that doesn't say very much. Even
> without postulating technological-singularities and other over-hyped
> futurism, the web seems to me to have a pretty limited lifetime, and
> though I suppose the free content movement and most of the ideals of
> its adherents, I don't really believe in the permanency of
> information, on or off the web.
>
> Most academics know that their work is going to be seen as "of a
> previous generation" in less than a decade. It's not really as dire as
> it sounds -- if it wasn't the case that most information aged rather
> poorly, there would be precious little work left to do in all fields
> of knowledge. If you aren't generating the future, then you're a
> doorstop. That being said, the fact that information can "age in
> realtime" on Wikipedia might make it a good deal more dynamic than
> things which came before it, and it could really stand out as
> something which could buck historical trends.
>
> Personally, I'm a little pessimistic, but that doesn't mean that I am
> going to support the project any less, or believe its work to be
> futile. If Wikipedia stays "healthy" it could have a long life ahead
> of it, and with any luck its free content model could be useful to
> other projects in the future.
>
> FF
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Magnus Manske

body:
Stan Shebs schrieb:
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
>
>> Please don't make automated moves..  Commons is not yet as effective
>> at dealing with En's copyright problems as en is.
>>
>>
> That's why I said "semi-automated". For instance, since I know
> about stamps, my ideal is that I should be able to review the
> PD-stamp category, move all the dubious ones over to fair use for
> later disposal, then give a command to move the remainder. Larger
> amorphous categories could be done in groups, a la FlickLickr.
>

For your images:
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/pushforcommons.php?language=en&max=50&wikiuser=Stan_Shebs

For other en images:
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/pushforcommons.php?language=en&max=50

Magnus

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060718/a0e06b0d/attachment.pgp


subject: [Foundation-l] ..

body:
I'm not so sure. There's only so much one (or all) can say about a
blank message. The only chance for the continuation of this thread
would be some kind of tangent. Open source and spam have been
mentioned, but no one took the bait. So, what will it be?

On 18/07/06, Sean Whitton <sean at silentflame.com> wrote:
> It's not unpleasant, this little conversation. We could keep going.
>
> On 18/07/06, valdelli at bluemail.ch <valdelli at bluemail.ch> wrote:
> > It could be... nothing else to do?
> >
> > Ilario
> >
> > ----Messaggio originale----
> > Da: messedrocker at gmail.com
> > Data: 17.07.2006 7.34
> > A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> > Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] ..
> >
> > It's incredible how much conversation there is sorrounding a blank
> > message.
> >
> > On 7/17/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> --
>         ?Xyrael ~ <xyr>
>                 sean at silentflame.com | xyrael.net
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [Foundation-l] ..


subject: [Foundation-l] ..

body:
What is this "ToFU discussion"? The only tofu I know about is the
coagulated soy milk...

On 18/07/06, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler at gmail.com> wrote:
> We could start a nice ToFU discussion...
>
> On 7/18/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm not so sure. There's only so much one (or all) can say about a
> > blank message. The only chance for the continuation of this thread
> > would be some kind of tangent. Open source and spam have been
> > mentioned, but no one took the bait. So, what will it be?
> >
> > On 18/07/06, Sean Whitton <sean at silentflame.com> wrote:
> > > It's not unpleasant, this little conversation. We could keep going.
> > >
> > > On 18/07/06, valdelli at bluemail.ch <valdelli at bluemail.ch> wrote:
> > > > It could be... nothing else to do?
> > > >
> > > > Ilario
> > > >
> > > > ----Messaggio originale----
> > > > Da: messedrocker at gmail.com
> > > > Data: 17.07.2006 7.34
> > > > A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> > > > Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] ..
> > > >
> > > > It's incredible how much conversation there is sorrounding a blank
> > > > message.
> > > >
> > > > On 7/17/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >         ?Xyrael ~ <xyr>
> > >                 sean at silentflame.com | xyrael.net
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [Foundation-l] ..


from_name: John Lyden

subject: [WikiEN-l] New spam?

body:
>From an email I just got:

Herringdoppler 	<frustrated_wiki_user at yahoo.com> to me 1:33 pm(12 minutes ago)

RasputinAXP
I have figured out a way to make profit on wikpda with only a one-time
time investment of about 10 minutes.  If you are interested, please
respond with a blank email message to frustrated_wiki_user at yahoo.com

Perhaps we could buy you a new laptop.

Herringdoppler

-=-=-=-
What in the heck?

-Ras

--
John Lyden - rasputinaxp at gmail.com
"The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to
live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same
time..." -Kerouac


body:
On 7/18/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Though to be fair, uploading is only half the job. Most people don't
> realise that categorising them makes them actually useful. At the very
> least, a category describing the thing it's a photo of:
> [[Sulfur-crested cockatoo]], [[Kilkenny Castle]] or [[MacDonalds]].
> Strangely, we don't seem to mention that fact much.

True enough. The biggest problem with Commons is that the MediaWiki
software is not really set up to be an image repository. What works
very well for articles does not work so well for groups of files -- it
is hard to find things which are uncategorized, it is hard to tell
when new things have arrived, and unless you have 200 images on your
watchlists it is hard to tell when image descriptions are changed (or
vandalized) or the images themselves have been re-uploaded.

> Examples probably help.

If you cruise through their IFD you can see a lot of this happening
all the time.

FF


subject: [WikiEN-l] Things about admins

body:
On 7/17/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> You openly admit that you regularly get into situations involving
> several users saying the same thing about you, without ever considering
> the possibility that this bunch of people who all came to the same
> conclusion about you might actually have a point?

Most of what they say is "you are a fascist because you won't let my
creationist/neo-Nazi/racist/conspiracy theory/anti-Semitic/etc. FACTS
into Wikipedia!"

The reason they say the same thing is because they come up against the
rule: NPOV.

I get along just fine with reasonable users and people with reasonable
complaints or objections. People who are generally nutty or have a
hard-line agenda to push generally run into problems with me and with
others.

So yeah. I enforce the rules at Wikipedia, and the rules at Wikipedia
say that a lot of content that dedicated and nutty users want to add
can't be added. In such cases, I am often GLAD to be the target of
their common complaints -- to be told that you do a good job in
keeping out nonsense is no insult at all.

FF


body:
You have done a good job stating the position that I support.

It is of note that we are not really writing *full* biographies on most of these people. And many of these blp that we do have something approaching a full biography will quickly because outdated. We have little chance of obtaining the updated information on these folks. Yet a number of users supported the arguement that once notable always notable.

Take care,
Sydney

---- Brian Salter-Duke <b_duke at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> My response below appeared very belated as I realised after sending it
> that it woudl go to moderation as I had changed my e-mail address. It is
> of course now old news as the AfD on Angela's article has been closed as
> no consensus - keep.
>
> This debate had lead me to reconsider my position. I really do not see
> why we should not delete articles on living persons if they request it
> and if they have not put themself firmly into the public domain, such as
> standing for office. Starting a company is not putting yourself into the
> public domain. It is the company that may deserve an article and the
> people who founded it should be mentioned. But that does not imply that
> we should breach their privacy by a full article on the founders.
> Getting elected to the Royal Society or similar is not pushing yourself
> into the public domain. Such a person might be mentioned on an article
> that explained the advance that lead to their election to the RS, but
> if they do not want a full bio, we should not write one. Privacy is very
> important.
>
> We are not writing an encyclopedia overnight. If a person is really
> notable, an article can be added later, possibly after their death, if
> they persit in requesting that there be no article in their lifetime.
>
> I do not think this course of action is out of line. For example, I
> think "Who's Who" does not force an entry on someone who does not want
> one. They do not argue that someone is notable and people have a right
> to find out about them whether the person wants this or not. I think
> there is a terrible arrogance about forcing a WP article on someone who
> does not want their privacy breached in this way.
>
> I understand that my approach is very close to the Japan WP approach
> that I asked about at the end. I think it should be followed up and
> implemented in the en WP.
>
> Apologies for top posting. I do not normally top post, but I am not
> specifically addressing the issues in the post below, just following up
> rather late.
>
> Brian.
>


from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject:
[Wikitech-l] pywikipediabot does not run on pms wikipedia,
 but works on nap and vec

body:
Hi, I am trying to run my bot on pms.wikipedia.org (User RobotSC)

I already have bot status on pms wikipedia.

For some reason it does not allow for login with login.py

I just tried to do the same on nap and vec: there it works.

I checked the user-config.py twice, so it should not be a problem.

Could it be that bots are not allowed on pms wikipedia?

Thank you for having a look.

Best, Sabine
Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale!
 http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com


from_name: Lord Voldemort

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ken Lay's death prompts confusion on Reuters

body:
On 7/18/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> We certainly do do news in the sense that we have articles on current events.

Hehe... you said do do. </childish> </obvious>  --LV