subject: [WikiEN-l] India problems

body:
Ray Saintonge < saintonge at telus.net > wrote:

> As I read more into this it is clear that the train fire was not an
> accident. Hindus on their way to a disputed religious site were
> indeed the victims in that incident.

Ray, let me give you some background as well give you known facts.

First, they were not on the way to any disputed religious site.
Those who were on the train were supposedly on the way back from
the disputed site and many roasted alive were women and children.

Secondly, disputed religious site or not is totally unconnected to
the issue. It is not against the law to go to a disputed site and
offer prayers.
It is mischievous to try to find a bizarre reason and
come up with any sort of connection which would lay the blame at
the door of the victims. For heavens' sake, they were victims. Show
them some respect. The train halted for 3 minutes and within that
time so many things happened that the train was doused in petrol
and set on fire? According to the Communist version, it would
appear that people carry petrol cans all the time for the purpose
of resolving disputes.

> Although it is widely accepted that Muslims were responsible for
> that specific incident, no individuals have been caught and
> prosecuted.

They have and they are Muslims.

> It is also apparent that most of the rioting that followed was

The correct word is RIOTING. You got it man! Riots are common in
India. This was not the first one that it needed to be romanticised.
It turned out that this was the first one in which the party so
much hated by Communists were in power.

> instigated by Hindu mobs, but not exclusively so.

Correct on this one too, but like the dynamics of every riot, they
are not "planned" and executed by large organizations. Most riots
follow a pattern - some local criminal gathers his gang and they
go and indulge in destruction and carry off the spoils and then a
similar person from the opposing side and now some of the innocent
victims do the same thing to exact revenge.

Who started the first of those riots, we do not know. What we do
know is that the result of riots until now has been that the Muslims
rally together and vote en bloc for the Congress party. For the
FIRST time in India, the opposite happened. The Hindus rallied
together and voted against the Congress Party.

At least in one case, we know that members of Congress were arrested
for preventing kids from attending exams and releasing news that
kids were terrified of coming out of their homes due to the rioting
going on. This was long after the riots had ceased.

> Most of the between 2,000 and 2,500 deaths that resulted were
> Muslims.

'Most' would be an exagerration. Majority would be the correct
term. Not just in the Gujarat riots. In all such riots, it is
Muslims who suffer because they are outnumbered. 850 is closer to
the actual figure.

When the train was burnt, the victims were blamed by the Indian
English media. A rumor on the internet was published as fact by
Washington Post and Independent. Those who had the presence of
mind to make a phone call (the number was also given) to
the 'witness' named in the chain mail learnt that it was a lie.
The report from Communists used this 'fact' to buttress their
claim.

Here is one journalist who had the presence of mind to call up
the witness named (also a journalist) -
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/may/14rajeev.htm
---- I contacted Anil Soni to ask about the veracity of this account. He said, "Some enemy of mine has done this to make life difficult for me. Do you understand, sir? I did not write this at all. I am a PTI correspondent. Yes, that is my phone number, but it is not my writing." He apparently had heard from hundreds of people, and he was very upset. ----

> Gujarat is awash with extremists of all kinds.

This sort of statement does no one any good. I assume you are in
the United States. Imagine broadbrushing the entire South and
claiming that the Southern states are awash with extremists of
all kinds.

> Nationalist and religious issues are far more significant
> in Gujarat.

It might interest you to know that the election commission keeps
an eye on the campaigning and any candidate using religion is disqualified from the election.

> There is no denying Iyer's communist background, and his
> participation in an elected state in relatively far away Kerala in
> 1957

Far away Kerala? You treat politics in India the way you treat
politics in USA. Kerala being one of the three states where
Communists are strong (others are not allowed to vote), it is
very important. Many Communist politicians from other states
get elected to the Upper House of Parliament from Kerala.

Further, he is a national figure. He was the Communists' candidate
for President not so long ago.

> (i.e. 45 years earlier). His communist background has no relevance
> to the incidents in Gujarat

Not to the incidents, but to the report which used words like
"fascist", "pogrom", "planned", "state-sponsored" and so on. He
wrote it for an organization stuffed with Communists.

Why is it that if Republican Party is called a White Nationalist
Party, you can think rationally and reject the claim but you are
unable to think rationally when it comes to branding people from
other countries and accept the branding?

Communism is a huge problem in India and the Communists were part
of the Central Govt until 1998 before the present "fascist" (i.e.,
not Communist) Govt won the election.

Arvind Narayanan seems to be a young college going boy who is not
aware of many things - as I pointed out earlier, he did not even
know the background of VR Krishna Iyer. He learnt it from me.

-libertarian

_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Introducing My Way - http://www.myway.com


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: libertarian

subject: [WikiEN-l] India problems

body:
Arvind Narayanan < arvindn at meenakshi.cs.iitm.ernet.in > wrote:

> All 3 usernames are newly created and all edit the same articles;
> your opinions are all the same, and your rants are *very* similar
> to those of Conradx on [[User_talk:Angela]], for example.

That only proves that when multiple sources say the same thing,
it is more likely to be factually correct!
I'll ignore the use of the word rant since you seem to be an
immature kid who has fallen for Communist Party propaganda. You
did not even know that VR Krishna Iyer is a MArxist until I
taught you that fact.

> Against all this evidence we have only your word,

"Evidence"? You seem to be logically challenged. According to you, if
three people have the same views, that is EVIDENCE that they are the
same person? Is this the kind of logic you use?

I think Wikipedia should investigate and clear up the issue because
the Communist on the list keeps repeating this allegation. For all
you know, the other names may not even be from my city or country.

Admit it, your version is a lie. And the evidence that you are a
moron is in the fact that you believe that tea story email which
circulated on the internet.

-libertarian

_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Introducing My Way - http://www.myway.com


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Communist paper apologises but Wikipedia endorses the
	malicious claim!

body:
On one page of Wikipedia, it says:
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) - organisation of which a member assassinated Mahatma Gandhi

Kolkata (capital of Communist ruled West Bengal) based Statesman made
the same claim and later apologised when asked for proof in a court
of law.
http://www.thestatesman.net/page.arcview.php?date=2003-10-11&usrsess=1&clid=1&id=53203

Despite the nonsensical nature of the claim of Communists, Wikipedia
seems to support those who espouse the Communist Party of India's
views. You may ask me why I don't edit it. Yes, I did so and
it gets reverted each time I do so and sometimes articles get locked
in a state favoring the allegations of Marxists even though they
may be factually inaccurate.

Why is it that Marxists are allowed to post their allegations as a
legitimate POV but if there are allegations to the contrary, they
are either not allowed or they have to be worded such that they are
weak? Even facts against the Communists are watered down into
allegations (as in the case of VR Krishna Iyer being a Marxist).

When there is something negative against Hindus/Indians, Wikipedia
has it as an assertion (even if it is unproven), but if there is
something positive, it is posted in terms which obfuscate the issue.

For the record, I have no sympathy for RSS and I am against a lot
of their lunatic ideas, but I want FACTS to be represented. Opposing
RSS doesn't mean I have to support the Communist Party of India.

Full text of the apology:

An apology

In an editorial entitled ?Double Standard ? Not Illegal but Stupid? (The Statesman, 29-30 May 2000), we had described the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh as ?the organisation that killed Gandhi?. This was incorrect, and unsupported by both facts and the record. We express regrets for the publication and apologise unconditionally for the anguish and mental torture caused to members of the organisation. This apology follows in the case ?Darshan Lal Jain vs CR Irani and others? in the court of Mr Atul Marya, Ld. Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Jagadhri (Haryana) in which the complainant was being represented by Mr Pardeep Garg, Advocate.
----

-libertarian

_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Introducing My Way - http://www.myway.com


from_name: viajero at quilombo.nl

subject: [WikiEN-l] Partial solution to rampant deletionism

body:
This discussion seems to be getting slightly off track.

There already is a incremental improvement in the way new articles are
dealt with: the Cleanup page. I've listed stubs there which I would have
voted to delete on VfD, and, much to my surprise, I've seen them blossom
into passable articles. By first listing substandard articles on Cleanup
with a brief comment for a week or two seems like a far more positive and
constructive approach than immediately "voting" on their deletion.

As an aside, I'll add that a fair number of new stubby articles can
profitably be merged into existing articles. It seems that many new users
are more inclined to start a new article than add to existing one.

V.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Communist paper apologises but Wikipedia endorses
	the	malicious claim!

body:
libertarian wrote:

>On one page of Wikipedia, it says:
>Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) - organisation of which a member assassinated Mahatma Gandhi
>
>Kolkata (capital of Communist ruled West Bengal) based Statesman made
>the same claim and later apologised when asked for proof in a court
>of law.
>http://www.thestatesman.net/page.arcview.php?date=2003-10-11&usrsess=1&clid=1&id=53203
>
>
>Full text of the apology:
>
>An apology
>
>In an editorial entitled Double Standard  Not Illegal but Stupid (The Statesman, 29-30 May 2000), we had described the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh as the organisation that killed Gandhi. This was incorrect, and unsupported by both facts and the record. We express regrets for the publication and apologise unconditionally for the anguish and mental torture caused to members of the organisation. This apology follows in the case Darshan Lal Jain vs CR Irani and others in the court of Mr Atul Marya, Ld. Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Jagadhri (Haryana) in which the complainant was being represented by Mr Pardeep Garg, Advocate.
>
Sometimes a small variation in wording can make all the difference in
meaning.

Thus

    organisation of which a member assassinated Mahatma Gandhi

and

    the organisation that killed Gandhi

do not say the same thing.  The apology by "The Statesman" was for the later phrase which the original text of the apology put in quotation marks.  The former puts the blame squarely on one individual who happened to be a member of the organization; the latter suggests a direct responsibility on the part of the organization.  In the context of the United States one cannot validly discredit the legacy of Abraham Lincoln solely on the basis of his membership in the same party as George W. Bush.

I do not have adequate background in the matter to take a position about which is correct, but I can be sensitive to the wording change.

The gratuitous references to communists and Marxists do not help anyone to understand the complex and highly distressing events in Gujarat.  The Communists of India are not a unified group.  Communist has become a collective term for several splinter parties... so which of them is relevant here?  When you mention "communist" in relation to Indian events to people who are totally unfamiliar with Indian politics, you will find yourself appealing to prejudices that have more to do with communism as it has developed in other countries.

The reference to communists is a straw man argument.  It is based on the presumption that others will see anything associated with communists as necessarily bad.  If the reader can be made to associate the views of one Gujarati faction with the communists, then it will imply the conclusion that anything associated with that faction is also bad.  This is a very dishonest way of debating.

Those of us outside of India who take the trouble to somewhat inform ourselves about India, will feel cheated if we need to plough through endless streams of biased propaganda from either side.  Let statements be evaluated on the basis of what is said rather than who said it.  The senseless violence in Gujarat needs to be explained in terms of Gujarati events, and not by reference to a newspaper from West Bengal or a politician from Kerala.

Ec


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Alfio Puglisi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Error on download.wikipedia.org

body:
Hello,
an error popped up on http://download.wikipedia.org

Warning: filesize(): Stat failed for
archives/en/20031108_old_table.sql.bz2 (errno=75 - Value too large for
defined data type) in /usr/local/apache/htdocs/download/index.php on line
133

Are sql dumps getting too big? :-)

Ciao,
Alfio


from_name: Vicki Rosenzweig

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Communist paper apologises but Wikipedia
	endorses the malicious claim!

body:
At 12:25 PM 11/8/03 -0500, libertarian wrote:

>On one page of Wikipedia, it says:
>Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) - organisation of which a member
>assassinated Mahatma Gandhi
>
>Kolkata (capital of Communist ruled West Bengal) based Statesman made
>the same claim and later apologised when asked for proof in a court
>of law.
>http://www.thestatesman.net/page.arcview.php?date=2003-10-11&usrsess=1&clid=1&id=53203

<snip>

>Full text of the apology:
>
>An apology
>
>In an editorial entitled ?Double Standard ? Not Illegal but Stupid? (The
>Statesman, 29-30 May 2000), we had described the Rashtriya Swayamsewak
>Sangh as ?the organisation that killed Gandhi?. This was incorrect, and
>unsupported by both facts and the record. We express regrets for the
>publication and apologise unconditionally for the anguish and mental
>torture caused to members of the organisation. This apology follows in the
>case ?Darshan Lal Jain vs CR Irani and others? in the court of Mr Atul
>Marya, Ld. Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Jagadhri (Haryana) in which the
>complainant was being represented by Mr Pardeep Garg, Advocate.

In other words, they either lost a lawsuit or decided they couldn't afford
to defend against
it. No legal system is perfect, and I don't know anything about Indian
libel laws, but at
most what we have here is a statement that this newspaper could not
convince a court
that it was correct. Not that the opposite is correct.

Other than that, (a) this is probably still the wrong place for this
discussion, and (b) you'll
get much further offering factual evidence than calling your opponents
communists.
Even if they are communists, that doesn't mean they're wrong about these facts.


from_name: Sascha Noyes

subject: [Wikitech-l] IRC (walter)

body:
On Saturday 08 November 2003 10:36, Anthere wrote:
> Loo gave me that address
> http://www.pure-mac.com/irct.html
>
> Alvaro made me download and install AthenaIRC: 2.1.0
> for MacOS 9.x the other day.
>
> Apparently one of the few for Mac OS 9 and free ?
>
>
> As nickname and username I put Anthere
> As Quit message : I put nothing (I do not know what I
> am supposed to put)
>
> In the connection settings, I put
>
> Serveur : irc.freenode.net (as written on
> fr.wikipedia)
> Port 6667 (well, that was default)
> Password : none (because I know not what I should
> write)
> At what command to put at login : I put nothing (I
> have no idea what to put)
> At what to write at logoff : I put nothing (I have no
> idea what to put)
> At Motd display : I put Display in dialogue (other
> options don't post, or post to console)
> +i invisible is checked
> +w receive operator message is not
> +s receive server message is not (these were options
> per default)
> In autoexecute : I put nothing (I do not know what to
> put)
>
> In short, this is all chinese to me.
>
> When I try to connect, I have this message
>
> *** Closing Link: Anthere (Connection Timed Out)
> *** Attempting reconnect in 5 seconds
> *** Opening IDENT Socket, waiting for connection
> *** Connected to irc.freenode.net
> *** Ident Connected
> *** Looking up your hostname...
> *** Ident Request Recieved
> *** Found your hostname, welcome back
> *** Checking ident
> *** Got ident response
> *** Some command did not include enough parameters
>
> This is also chinese to me
>
> -------
>
> What do I do ? Ideas for me to be able to join the
> wikipedia community discussions ?
>
> err...the name of the missing plugin perhaps ?

The connection log seems to show that you connected successfully. You should
be on the IRC server, but still have to join the channel(s). Type:

/join #wikipedia

and type also:

/join #fr.wikipedia

Best,
Sascha Noyes
--
Please encrypt all email. Public key available from
www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] The deletion "discussion"

body:
On 11/8/03 2:24 PM, "Rick" <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I became overly emotional last night, and I apologize for that.  But when I am
> constantly attacked as not only worthless to the project but damaging to it,
> and when any attempt at explanation is dismissed out of hand as nothing but a
> "straw man" argument, I see that there is no point in continuing this
> so-called discussion.  I am therefore dropping out of any further argument on
> this subject.

Your participation in the discussion is valued.

Your participation in the project is valued. I don't believe anyone attacked
you as worthless and damaging to the project--I certainly did not.

It is not the case that any attempt at explanation is dismissed out of hand
as nothing but a straw man argument.

It *is* the case that in this discussion a lot of straw men have been
built--that is, many arguments have been of the form "I think A is bad
because B, which is evidently bad, could happen", without any argument to
connect A to B.

Or the argument "Why are you defending A, which is bad?" when noone was
defending A (such as the Antonio Alvarado article).

These are both straw man arguments.


from_name: Walter Vermeir

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: About IRC

body:
Anthere wrote:

> Despite of my attempt to install a software to access
> IRC, I fail. This is not simple for a non developper.

Go to http://javachat.wikipedia.be

It is the Javachat for #nl.wikipedia

When conected enter;
/leave

(to leave #nl.wikipedia)

and
/join #wikipedia

and (or)
/join #fr.wikipedia

To change your name;
/nick yournewname

--
Contact: walter AT wikipedia PUNT be
Ook een artikeltje schrijven? WikipediaNL, de vrije GNU/FDL encyclopedie
http://www.wikipedia.be


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] RFC Magic

body:
On Nov 8, 2003, at 08:58, Chris Seaton wrote:

> I notice that the RFC magic function is not implemented. I think I can
> do that, looking at the ISBN one. Should I set up a special page
> similar
> to book sources, called RFC sources, or just link to one site that has
> the RFCs?

Picking one is probably fine; theoretically they'll all be the same.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Proposed: stop all deletes for 6 months,
	then reconsider

body:
James Duffy wrote:

>
> [...] It is quite frankly the most ludicrous of ludicrous ideas

Not that anybody is being histrionic or anything...

> [...] The ''deletionists'' against ''inclusionists'' argument is
> utterly bogus. It is a case of those who take the idea that wikipedia
> as an encyclopedia seriously and basic standards below which an
> article is deleted and those who see wikipedia as some sort of
> scribblebox where any sort of rubbish, not matter how bad, has a
> 'right' to be left undisturbed.

...nor that we want to mischaracterize legitimate positions in the most
extreme terms possible, or insult our opponents. Is there anybody else
here foolhardy enough to claim that I don't take the idea of Wikipedia
as an encyclopedia seriously?

I've never argued against the deletion of bad content, but the VfD page has
become a stalking horse for the debate about WP's scope. That's a fine
debate
to have, and we should be working to develop consensus about scope; but
instead of filling up meta with a rational discussion, we have daily
catfights on VfD.

A bunch of my content these days comes from books (remember those?) rather
than the net; and so one of these days I'm sure some moron is going to
list one of my new articles on VfD "because it only has 20 Google hits",
as if Google is now the only definition of human knowledge or something.

Stan


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Communist paper apologises but Wikipedia endorses
	the 	malicious claim!

body:
Why do you think I brought it up here on the list for redressal?
It is because I am confident that if neutral and objective people
look at the issue, they will find that I am correct.

Another finding was made.

> It is based on the presumption that others will see anything
> associated with communists as necessarily bad. If the reader can be
> made to associate the views of one Gujarati faction with the
> communists, then it will imply the conclusion that anything
> associated with that faction is also bad. This is a very dishonest
> way of debating.

Come on, I presented facts. I pointed out the lies. I gave links.
And I made the point about Communists in India only to explain why
the opposing view which I had proven to be factually inaccurate
existed. It is a fact that Communists indulged in propaganda soon
after the riots.
Imagine calling the riots in Cincinnatti as a Govt sponsored
"pogrom."

No problem if that's what it was. Something very similar to a pogrom did
happen in Tusla, Oklahoma in 1921. See
http://www.manningmarable.net/works/apr03a.html
We should have an article on this by the way.

Pogroms (Which really only happened in Russia and what is now Belarus and
Ukraine) were both spontaneous and government tolerated mass murder which
gave the majority population a way of letting of steam, and are really
quite comparable to the events in Gujarat. Communists do tend to be quite
opportunistic and are constantly looking for issues and are often less than
honorable in their exploitation of them, that said, give em a good issue
and they'll fit you out with a new butthole. Of course, they exploit the
outrage generated by Hindu attacks on minorities just as they exploited
racial discrimination in America, but what is really involved is that there
is a wrong and that the energy generated by that wrong is being used by
someone. It does not mean that the wrong is not real.

Fred


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Blocking

body:
Anthere wrote:
> I...please...would like some help/suggestions.
>
> I hereby annonce giving up soft security attempts with
> Papotages. I think I have tried to the latest end I
> possibly could. And now, to my shame, I decided to
> give up. Criticisms toward me trying to do this is is
> part of my decision, but today it is also clear that
> it is not efficient in the end.
>
> Now, given that : when his user name was blocked, he
> created 9 vandal user names and went on.
>
> Given that after his 10 user names were blocked, he
> went on with ips, I wonder if it is very valuable to
> try the same pattern, and to meet the same problems.
>
> So, I am asking help here, either from someone who
> would feel like doing something (in truth, I do not
> think any of the french-speaking person is interested
> in discussing with him constructively), or from
> someone who will find a technical suggestion (going as
> far as blocking half of switzerland :-)). Either way.
>
> I am done with it.

I was discussing possible measures against this guy on the IRC channel.
I came to the conclusion that the best feature to implement would be a
method for quickly rolling back page creation. Possibly, sysops could
have a column of checkboxes on RC. They would then be able to tick all
the Papotages-related edits, and roll them back in one request.

Perhaps this could be submitted to Sourceforge feature requests.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Peter Thoeny

subject: [WikiEN-l] Need material to introduce Wikipedia at LinuxWorld

body:
Dear Jimbo and Sheldon,

I will talk about "Wiki Collaboration in the Corporate
World" in the upcoming LinuxWorld in NY on 21 Jan 2003,
http://www.linuxworldexpo.com/linuxworldny/V40/conference/session.cvn?eID=319

As part of this presentation I would like to devote one
slide to Wikipedia since it is a major Wiki system. I
would appreciate if you could supply me some material
you would like to have covered in the slide.

I am currently preparing the presentation, my deadline
to submit the material is on 17 Nov 2003.

Best regards,
Peter


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Communist paper apologises but Wikipedia endorses	the
	malicious claim!

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:

>Why do you think I brought it up here on the list for redressal?
>It is because I am confident that if neutral and objective people
>look at the issue, they will find that I am correct.
>
>Another finding was made.
>
>>It is based on the presumption that others will see anything
>>associated with communists as necessarily bad. If the reader can be
>>made to associate the views of one Gujarati faction with the
>>communists, then it will imply the conclusion that anything
>>associated with that faction is also bad. This is a very dishonest
>>way of debating.
>>
>     Come on, I presented facts. I pointed out the lies. I gave links.
>     And I made the point about Communists in India only to explain why
>     the opposing view which I had proven to be factually inaccurate
>     existed. It is a fact that Communists indulged in propaganda soon
>     after the riots.
>     Imagine calling the riots in Cincinnatti as a Govt sponsored
>     "pogrom."
>
>No problem if that's what it was. Something very similar to a pogrom did
>happen in Tusla, Oklahoma in 1921. See
>http://www.manningmarable.net/works/apr03a.html
>We should have an article on this by the way.
>
The article makes its point very well without mentioning communists.
 The takeover of Native-American lands in the 19th century also had
pogrom like characteristics.

>Pogroms (Which really only happened in Russia and what is now Belarus and
>Ukraine) were both spontaneous and government tolerated mass murder which
>gave the majority population a way of letting of steam, and are really
>quite comparable to the events in Gujarat.
>
An interesting point, but grafting a soviet concept onto Indian
circumstances carries certain intellectual dangers.

>Communists do tend to be quite
>opportunistic and are constantly looking for issues and are often less than
>honorable in their exploitation of them, that said, give em a good issue
>and they'll fit you out with a new butthole.
>
Dishonorable opportunism is a characteristic that is common to many
political parties across the ideological spectrum

>Of course, they exploit the
>outrage generated by Hindu attacks on minorities just as they exploited
>racial discrimination in America, but what is really involved is that there
>is a wrong and that the energy generated by that wrong is being used by
>someone. It does not mean that the wrong is not real.
>
This is the crux of the issue, no matter who is engaging in exploiting
that issue for political gain.  Referencing communists (or fascists for
that matter) only serves to distract us from an understandng of the issue.

A very recent Statesman article refers to a very recent riot in
Viramgam.
http://www.thestatesman.net/page.arcview.php?clid=3&id=55336&usrsess=1
This was triggered by Muslim boys trying to retrieve a cricket ball that
had inadvertently landed in a Hindu area.  I doubt that the participants
ever gave any serious thought to communism in deciding to riot.

Ec


from_name: Alex Rosen

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Proposed: stop all deletes for 6 months, then
	reconsider

body:
> The ''deletionists''
> against ''inclusionists'' argument is utterly bogus. It is a case of
those
> who take the idea that wikipedia as an encyclopedia seriously and
basic
> standards below which an article is deleted and those who see
wikipedia as
> some sort of scribblebox where any sort of rubbish, not matter how
bad, has
> a 'right' to be left undisturbed.

Watch it - you've just said that me, Jimbo, and a lot of other people
don't take Wikipedia seriously as an encyclopedia. That's not true, and
I think you know it. Here are some other reasons that people have for
their anti-deletionism stance, other than they don't "take the idea that
wikipedia as an encyclopedia seriously":

- They think that an Internet encyclopedia can and should cover much
more ground as compared to a paper encyclopedia, so more things should
be included. It's a legitimate argument - what would Funk & Wagnalls
include if it didn't have any space constraints?
- The job of the current Wikipedia is not to be a perfect encyclopedia,
but to be a source for the great "1.0" version. That version will weed
out everything that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Until then, it's
counterproductive to actively delete everything that's not perfect,
because it'll drive off too many people and will cause too much argument
and strife. (This has nothing to do with anything having a "right" to be
left undisturbed, it's just a pragmatic thing.)

I'm in the second camp; I think Jimbo subscribes to both of these
philosophies.

The second half of your argument, about the scribblebox, is just
hyperbole of course. Nobody is arguing for that. Everyone wants to
delete pure rubbish. It's the stuff that's not rubbish, but also not
"notable" or "important", that's we're really arguing about.

Alex


from_name: Chris Seaton

subject: [Wikitech-l] RFC Magic

body:
I notice that the RFC magic function is not implemented. I think I can
do that, looking at the ISBN one. Should I set up a special page similar
to book sources, called RFC sources, or just link to one site that has
the RFCs?
--
Chris Seaton <chris at chrisseaton.com>


body:
>> - The job of the current Wikipedia is not to be a perfect
encyclopedia,
>> but to be a source for the great "1.0" version. That version will
weed
>> out everything that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.
>
>I find this argument disturbing and wrong. I certainly hope this is
not the
>consensus understanding of the role of Wikipedia. Have I missed some
>official position statements?

Hmm, I think I played a little fast and loose in attributing this
stance to Jimbo. Here's where I got it from:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-October/008012.html

What he's really saying that a paper 1.0 will weed out everything that
doesn't fit into a paper encyclopedia, which is different. Whoops.

I still like the idea though. I think it's unrealistic that the wiki
model will produce a professional quality encyclopedia. Wiki is great
for getting a lot of not-bad content, but terrible at getting
consistently very good content.

But, maybe James's suggestions can achieve that!
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-November/008272.html

Alex


body:
> organisation of which a member assassinated Mahatma Gandhi
>
> and
>
> the organisation that killed Gandhi

Well, what do you know, this guy wasn't even a member of the
organnization. He was an ex-member of both the Congress Party
and RSS when he assassinated Gandhi.
Why pick on one unless your aim is to make an indirect assertion?

> I do not have adequate background in the matter to take a position
> about which is correct, but I can be sensitive to the wording
> change.

When the allegations were first made, the Govt investigated the
organization and cleared it.

> The gratuitous references to communists and Marxists do not help
> anyone to understand the complex and highly distressing events in
> Gujarat. The Communists of India are not a unified group. Communist
> has become a collective term for several splinter parties... so
> which of them is relevant here? When you mention "communist" in
> relation to Indian events to people who are totally unfamiliar with
> Indian politics, you will find yourself appealing to prejudices
> that have more to do with communism as it has developed in other
> countries.
>
> The reference to communists is a straw man argument.

Unfortunately for you, Communists in India are one of the dominant
political groups and control the English media and until recently
controlled the academia (i.e, authoring school textbooks). This
is a FACT. Just as you have Republican Party and Democratic Party
in USA, we have many parties in India and Communists are very
influential.
They've also indulged in sustained propaganda.

As you can see from the discussions on the talk page as well as on
the email list, it is I who has attempted to enter into a discussion
and present facts and evidence. Did it ever strike you that the other
side never did that?

Why do you think I brought it up here on the list for redressal?
It is because I am confident that if neutral and objective people
look at the issue, they will find that I am correct.

> It is based on the presumption that others will see anything
> associated with communists as necessarily bad. If the reader can be
> made to associate the views of one Gujarati faction with the
> communists, then it will imply the conclusion that anything
> associated with that faction is also bad. This is a very dishonest
> way of debating.

Come on, I presented facts. I pointed out the lies. I gave links.
And I made the point about Communists in India only to explain why
the opposing view which I had proven to be factually inaccurate
existed. It is a fact that Communists indulged in propaganda soon
after the riots.
Imagine calling the riots in Cincinnatti as a Govt sponsored
"pogrom."

You term me dishonest when I am the one who has taken the trouble of
presenting facts and looking at things in a logical manner.

> Those of us outside of India who take the trouble to somewhat
> inform ourselves about India, will feel cheated if we need to
> plough through endless streams of biased propaganda from either
> side.

I don't take sides. I want facts presented. Not crude allegations.

> Let statements be evaluated on the basis of what is said rather
> than who said it. The senseless violence in Gujarat needs to be
> explained in terms of Gujarati events, and not by reference to a
> newspaper from West Bengal or a politician from Kerala.

Right. Which is what I was asking. Go read it again and you will
find that it is just a string of allegations. When it is convenient,
there is no assertion that Hindus were the ones who were burnt, but
just a few lines later, you find an assertion that they were Hindus
and they provoked the crowd into dousing the train with petrol and
burning it! All in 3 minutes.

Doesn't that strike you as something wrong?

Presentation of fiction and carrying out of propaganda is
unacceptable. All sources used are Marxist in nature. Sadly, this
is a FACT. You may consider it as a strawman argument, but if you
make an allegation, surely the burden of proof is on YOU, not me.
If you cannot prove an allegation, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia
just because your political masters made the allegation.

-libertarian

_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Introducing My Way - http://www.myway.com


from_name: Arvind Narayanan

subject: [WikiEN-l] India problems

in_reply_to:
<20031108050626.AF15F394D@mprdmxin.myway.com>;
	from libertarian@myway.com on Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 12:06:26AM
	-0500

body:
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 12:06:26AM -0500, libertarian wrote:
>
> --- On Fri 11/07, Arvind Narayanan < arvindn at meenakshi.cs.iitm.ernet.in > wrote:
> From: Arvind Narayanan [mailto: arvindn at meenakshi.cs.iitm.ernet.in]
>
> > The person making the allegations has 3 usernames
> > LibertarianAnarchist, Democrate2003 and Conradx. I'll call them LA
> > for short. The above articles are the only ones LA has ever edited.
>
> This is rubbish. Any admin can check up the IP address and you
> will find that I have nothing to do with Democrate2003 or Conradx.
>
That proves nothing at all. You could be using one username from
home and one from work etc.

All 3 usernames are newly created and all edit the same articles;
your opinions are all the same, and your rants are *very* similar
to those of Conradx on [[User_talk:Angela]], for example. Against
all this evidence we have only your word, which counts for nothing
(to me at least).

Also note that I'm not the only one to think so. On my talk page
you will see:

   It is only one person, of course, so presumably it will settle
   down soon enough either way. -- VV 09:43, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

So I still continue to assume you are the same person.
> I also suggest you apologize for claiming that I am Democrate2003
> and Conradx.
>
Why?? I wouldn't feel insulted if someone claims I'm someone else;
if you do, that's your problem. You've already claimed that Fred's
opinion of you constitutes slander; so of course I'm not surprised
you're outraged (or pretend to be) by what I claimed, but again,
I see no reason to change my opinion.

And by the way, I have absolutely no inclination to get into an
argument with you about who is a communist and who isn't. You can
assume that I am a communist, if it will make you happy.

Cheers,
Arvind
--
Its all GNU to me


from_name: Nicolas Weeger

subject: [Wikitech-l] 'links' and 'brokenlinks' tables dump?

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

Hello.

On download.wikipedia.org we can find dumps of 'cur' and 'old' tables,
but is there a place to grab 'links' and 'brokenlinks'?
I'd want to run some queries on links & such, so it'd be easier to
have'em :)

Thanks in advance

Nicolas 'Ryo'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE/rRi6xqZgvN2acvURAoucAJ9fReX+J6RnQjjEOZ1p5tJ3gszijgCeLJlH
ALBSQgG8L7q6+Zn5jJO1Zok=
=ZpRK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: libertarian

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fred Bauder's slander [was:India problems]

body:
--- On Sat 11/08, Andre Engels < engelsAG at t-online.de > wrote:
<snip>

Andre,

You are correct about India having the second largest Muslim
population in the world. The estimate is above 140 million.
120 million is an older census figure.

This reminds me of another point - People like Boud contribute
on the topic, but are actually clueless about India and learn
stuff after I protest something. Such people who have made up their
minds to hate Indians but do not know what to post should not be
posting to Wikipedia. That is ridiculous.

Let me also point out to the person who thinks my usage of the
word "Communist" is a dishonest way of discussing issues despite the
fact that there is truth to my claim - Has it ever struck you that
Arvindn and Wik have gone around Wikipedia using the words
"fascist" and "fundamentalist" to describe the Government of the
world's LARGEST DEMOCRACY?

Why is it that their usage is acceptable?

And finally, it is they who use terms such as "Hindu Taliban"
"Hindu fascist" "Hindu Nazi."
They feel a need to define Hindus in terms of people such as
Nazis. Why do you not hear statements such as "Taliban is as
dangerous as Hindus in India."
If 800 million Hindus are nothing but bloodthirsty barbarians,
surely that would be the case. Think over it.

libertarian

_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Introducing My Way - http://www.myway.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Rampant Deletionism

body:
On 11/8/03 5:20 PM, "James Duffy" <jtdire at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/7/03 3:23 AM, "Delirium" <delirium at rufus.d2g.com> wrote:
>>> My main question is that it makes Wikipedia look ridiculous, and makes
>>> information harder to find.  If I search for "Michael Jordan" and get
>>> 4,000 results consisting of every person who has ever been named
>>> "Michael Jordan", that's *much* less useful than the current state, and
>>> a bit laughable.  Wikipedia is not a geneological database after all.
>>>
>> The Cunctator stated:
>> This is a straw man argument.
>
> That is The Cunc's usual reply. Don't make a credible case, just call your
> opponent's argument a "straw man" argument.  'Nuff said. Any chance of a
> more detailed argument rather than an empty clich?, Cunc?
>
Funny, I seem to have made many replies in this discussion other than "This
is a straw man argument".

Rather than the insulting, ad hominem attacks, why don't we actually discuss
the validity of my claim?

In other words, do you dispute that what Delirium wrote is a straw man
argument?

I claim that it is; in other words, that  a) there do not exist 4000 results
consisting of every person who has ever been named "Michael Jordan" on
Wikipedia, and that b) noone is advocating creating entries for every person
who has ever been named Michael Jordan.

Using such a nonexistent hypothetical scenario to argue against the
inclusion of (to pick a specific example) entries on some of the victims of
September 11 is a classic straw man argument.

He has failed to show how what is being advocated leads necessarily to what
he fears.

Now, rather than simply saying that I use empty cliches, do you care to make
an reasonable rebuttal?


body:
On 11/8/03 5:08 PM, "James Duffy" <jtdire at hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> I agree 100% with Erik.  This proposal is absurd in the extreme. Wikipedia
> finds it hard enough to keep up with the deletion of articles continually. A
> ban for six months would leave a back log of hundreds if not thousands of
> articles that have no place on an encyclopedia but end up surviving by
> default, or else leading to a /massive/ period of deletions unprecedented in
> wikipedia history. It is quite frankly the most ludicrous of ludicrous
> ideas, an unworkable idea that would damage wikipedia. The ''deletionists''
> against ''inclusionists'' argument is utterly bogus. It is a case of those
> who take the idea that wikipedia as an encyclopedia seriously and basic
> standards below which an article is deleted and those who see wikipedia as
> some sort of scribblebox where any sort of rubbish, not matter how bad, has
> a 'right' to be left undisturbed.

I agree that a six month moratorium would probably be counterproductive.

A two-week moratorium on deleting entries that would be placed on VfD, as
originally suggested, is more reasonable and should be the only one under
discussion.


body:
On 11/8/03 6:17 PM, "Alex Rosen" <arosen at novell.com> wrote:
> Watch it - you've just said that me, Jimbo, and a lot of other people
> don't take Wikipedia seriously as an encyclopedia. That's not true, and
> I think you know it. Here are some other reasons that people have for
> their anti-deletionism stance, other than they don't "take the idea that
> wikipedia as an encyclopedia seriously":
>
> - They think that an Internet encyclopedia can and should cover much
> more ground as compared to a paper encyclopedia, so more things should
> be included. It's a legitimate argument - what would Funk & Wagnalls
> include if it didn't have any space constraints?

Moreover, I believe that Wikipedia should not ascribe to use dead-tree
encyclopedias as models for its content and shape, just as it was a mistake
to model early automobiles after horse-buggies. We need to move past the
metaphor and recognize that a paper encyclopedia is not an encyclopedia in
the true sense of being a universal reference.

Wikipedia has the potential to be a universal reference; a paper
encyclopedia does not. They are different beasts which share a heritage.

> - The job of the current Wikipedia is not to be a perfect encyclopedia,
> but to be a source for the great "1.0" version. That version will weed
> out everything that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

I find this argument disturbing and wrong. I certainly hope this is not the
consensus understanding of the role of Wikipedia. Have I missed some
official position statements?

<snip>

> The second half of your argument, about the scribblebox, is just
> hyperbole of course. Nobody is arguing for that. Everyone wants to
> delete pure rubbish. It's the stuff that's not rubbish, but also not
> "notable" or "important", that's we're really arguing about.

Absolutely.


from_name: Stevertigo

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Articles about ourselves

body:
--- Sheldon Rampton wrote:
"For the book itself to be considered controversial,
there has to be a controversy about it, and aside from
Jimbo's
exploding head, there hasn't been one."

Hahaha.

:)
~S~

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
"Fred Bauder" <fredbaud at ctelco.net> schrieb:

> I think the most important fact about India relevant to this discussion is
> that it is the largest Muslim nation in the world. That is, more muslims
> live in India than in any other state.

Not that it matters to your point, but although one of the largest Muslim nations, India is not the largest. Looking at the data on [[Demographics of India]], India's Muslim population (over 140 million) is second after Indonesia's (almost 200 million). Elsewhere on the page, it is stated that there are 120 million Muslims in India, which would make it go down to third place (Pakistan with 130-140 million Muslims being second).

Andre Engels


body:
Fred Bauder [mailto: fredbaud at ctelco.net] wrote:

> No problem if that's what it was.

Unfortunately, it doesn't meet even that standard. Pogrom is an
organized crime. What happened in Gujarat was riots. Stop
pretending that only Whites are civilized while the rest of the
world is barbaric.

> Pogroms (Which really only happened in Russia and what is now
> Belarus and Ukraine) were both spontaneous and government
> tolerated mass murder which gave the majority population a way of
> letting of steam, and are really quite comparable to the events in
> Gujarat.

You sure seem to have some ax to grind against Hindus. You are
factually wrong on so many points.

1) The Govt didn't tolerate the riots in Gujarat. The Army was
called in to control the riots. In the entire history of
post-independent India, this Govt showed the fastest response.

2) Riots are not comparable to pogroms.

3) The riots in Gujarat happened both ways.

4) The events in Gujarat were triggered by Muslims who firebombed
a train. Keep denying it as much as you want. It only shows your
bigotry.

> Of course, they exploit the outrage generated by Hindu attacks
> on minorities

Which is not my complaint. Rioting is wrong. Rioting in Gujarat
was not the correct response even though it was an act of rage in
the wake of firebombing the train. Two wrongs do not make a right.
If you think I am disputing the exitence of the riots, you have
completely missed the point.

The point is this - I want facts to be represented in the entry.
1) Muslims firebombed a train.
2) This triggered off riots.
3) Both Muslims and Hindus died in the ensuing riots with Muslim
casualties outnumbering the Hindu casualties.

The above are facts. Self appointed Communist organizations which
use terms such as "human rights," "peasants and workers"
"union for civil liberties", "solidarity" "people's" and so on in
their title does not necessarily make them credible sources of
information.
Also a fact is the point about the indian english media blaming the
victims immediately after the frebombing occurred. Fortunately,
you can still see the editorials in the archives of major
newspapers and this will prove my point.

Why are you shy of criticising the firebombing of the train by
Muslims unconditionally but you quickly jump to conclusions when
Hindus are involved? Is it because you are afraid of Muslims while
you have found Hindus to be docile people in your country who are
quiet and hardworking doctors and computer engineers and hence
soft targets of criticism? Shame on you. You pick weak people to
bully.

I also notice that you have cleverly avoided commenting on the links
I gave where Times of India in its editorials quoted Leniin and
bashed capitalism and fondly wished for Communists to unite. Just as
you have avoided commenting on the specific points I gave.

I think you should be honest enough to look at the points I made
instead of making the "Muslim good Hindu bad" and "Islam = peace,
Hinduism = barbaric terrorists" claims.
You haven't commented on Arvindn, Wik and VV's urge to go about
branding Hindus as "fascists" but you find my usage of the term
"Communist" objectionable even though it is a fact.

-libertarian

_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Introducing My Way - http://www.myway.com


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: IRC (walter)

body:
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 07:36:09 -0800 (PST), Anthere wrote:
> Go to http://javachat.wikipedia.be
>
> It is the Javachat for #nl.wikipedia
<snip>

Hello,

Maybe this feature might be implemented for all wikis ? :0)  Chating while
working on an article might be usefull.

:0)

--
Ashar Voultoiz
http://fr.wikipedia.org/Utilisateur:Hashar


body:
Ray Saintonge < saintonge at telus.net > wrote:

> I doubt that the participants ever gave any serious thought to
> communism in deciding to riot.

You have not understood what the discussion is about. It is not
about the intent of the rioters, but the MISREPRESENTATION of
events.

I see that you have already taken sides and decided that Muslims
must be peaceful people while Hindus are violent people. Perhaps
you have observed that Hindus go all around the world placing
explosives in markets and slamming planes into buildings.

-libertarian

_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Introducing My Way - http://www.myway.com


from_name: Vicki Rosenzweig

body:
At 07:33 PM 11/8/03 -0500, you wrote:

>Fred Bauder [mailto: fredbaud at ctelco.net] wrote:
>
> > No problem if that's what it was.
>
>Unfortunately, it doesn't meet even that standard. Pogrom is an
>organized crime. What happened in Gujarat was riots. Stop
>pretending that only Whites are civilized while the rest of the
>world is barbaric.

Huh? Nobody is saying anything of the kind. Pogroms are something
that white people have clearly committed--whether or not the term
applies to the actions we're discussing in India, it definitely applies
to Russia, and to specific crimes committed by people who are
generally classified as white--and I don't think anyone is claiming that
pogroms are evidence of civilization.


from_name: Jens Frank

body:
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 05:24:27PM +0100, Nicolas Weeger wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hello.
>
> On download.wikipedia.org we can find dumps of 'cur' and 'old' tables,
> but is there a place to grab 'links' and 'brokenlinks'?
> I'd want to run some queries on links & such, so it'd be easier to
> have'em :)
>
> Thanks in advance

The links can be created by the maintenance/rebuildlinks.php script
that's part of the wikipedia software.

Regards,

JeLuF


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Error on download.wikipedia.org

body:
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 05:45:09 -0800, Brion Vibber wrote:
> Conratulations, Wikipedia, we have broken the 2 gigabyte barrier! :)
>
> I've added a workaround to measure the size without an error, but some
> people may have trouble downloading this dump.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

Does the database got all of this 2 gigabytes data ? Maybe that could
explain the slowness ? :p

--
Ashar Voultoiz
http://fr.wikipedia.org/Utilisateur:Hashar


from_name: Luc Van Oostenryck

body:
Jens Frank wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 05:24:27PM +0100, Nicolas Weeger wrote:
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>Hello.
>>
>>On download.wikipedia.org we can find dumps of 'cur' and 'old' tables,
>>but is there a place to grab 'links' and 'brokenlinks'?
>>I'd want to run some queries on links & such, so it'd be easier to
>>have'em :)
>>
>>Thanks in advance
>
>
> The links can be created by the maintenance/rebuildlinks.php script
> that's part of the wikipedia software.
>
> Regards,
>
> JeLuF

Mmm, how much time does it take to rebuild these tables with this script?

-- Looxix


body:
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:33:07PM +0100, Ashar Voultoiz wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 05:45:09 -0800, Brion Vibber wrote:
> > Conratulations, Wikipedia, we have broken the 2 gigabyte barrier! :)
> >
> > I've added a workaround to measure the size without an error, but some
> > people may have trouble downloading this dump.
> >
> > -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
> Does the database got all of this 2 gigabytes data ? Maybe that could
> explain the slowness ? :p

2 GB is the compressed size. The database holds this data *uncompressed*. The
slowness, though, is probably caused by this

   http://en.wikipedia.org/stats/usage.png

and not by the DB size.

Regards,

JeLuF


body:
James Duffy wrote:

>> Wikipedia finds it hard enough to keep up with the deletion of articles continually. A ban for six months would leave a back log of hundreds if not thousands of
articles that have no place on an encyclopedia but end up surviving by default, or else leading to a /massive/ period of deletions unprecedented in
wikipedia history.<<

Well, it would if you ignored the purpose I gave for suggesting it, which was improving how we do things. I didn't propose stopping all cleaning up work for six months. Instead of deleting:

o tag the article with a link to a help page for the expeditious deletion reason or a page covering the reason why something is considered a VfD candidate.
o after six months, run the few SQL commands it takes delete any article containing those tags which hasn't been changed for a month or more.
o run another SQL command to list those containing the tags which have been changed, so people can look them over.
o repeat once a month if it seems to be working out.

This has several advantages:

o anyone can do it, not just admins. That's a quick expansion of the cleaning up workforce.
o those making silly mistakes are pointed to a page which explains what they did wrong and/or which may encourage them to participate instead of vandalizing
o those who are vandalising may think they have succeeded and not notice things vanishign a month later, after their attention span has expired.
o it's a completely open process, for everyone, including non-admins. A much more wiki way of working.

>> The ''deletionists'' against ''inclusionists'' argument is utterly bogus.<<

I agree. I see it as a size of wikipedia argument, not an inclusion or exclusion argument. I'm a deletionist. With a different threshold than some other deletionsists.

>> It is a case of those who take the idea that wikipedia as an encyclopedia seriously and basic standards below which an article is deleted and those who see wikipedia as some sort of scribblebox where any sort of rubbish, not matter how bad, has a 'right' to be left undisturbed. <<

Fortunately, I didn't advocate that view. Instead I proposed a way of:
o identifying articles which are poor
o automatically deleting the irretrievable ones after some time has passed
o a way of identifying and searching to find the ones which need most work, so they can be fixed
o a way (tagging) which will let us run an SQL command to tag every article which makes the 1.0 cut, then sort them by quality, so we can concentrate on improving what will be in 1.0, or in adding and removing to that list.

I agree that the Wikipedia isn't, and shouldn't be, a scribblebox. That's why I'm suggesting ways to help identify the scribbles and take care of them more efficiently.


subject: [WikiEN-l] More efficient process suggestions

body:
Alex Rosen wrote:

>>One problem is, which version are you voting for? If I vote 7 for an article, and then a few edits happen, what happens to my vote? We could weight the votes based on what percent of the article has changed since
the vote.<<

Current version, always. As we get closer to 1.0 we'll need to have monthly runs to find and tag articles which make the cut for 1.0 and searches to highlight the ones most in need of work. We'll also need 1.0MustInclude and 1.0MustExclude. At some point near the end of that process it may be necessary to protect articles if vandalism becomes a problem. We can see what happens and adjust accordingly. You can change your vote at any time if you like. It will be necessary to stop allowing new articles to qualify near the end as well, so a poor article with a few 9 votes can't make it in just because few people have seen it.

>> As far as using this to solve the inclusionism/ deletionism debate, we'd need two votes for that - quality and importance. I might want only
quality articles but of any importance, or vice versa.<<

Hit counters can provide an intital importance ranking. 1.0MustInclude and 1.0MustExclude go further. Might need an importance vote tagging scale. I hope that we'll have really good quality by then and it won't be required. WikiProjects can have a big role in this, organizing and rating the key topics for heir subject. We'll see how it develops after a year of 1.0Qualified monthly runs have passed and we've seen how well that gets things screened and improved.

>> Adding child-rating votes would require a lot more choices, since people have very different ideas about what's apprpriate for kids. We'd have to have ratings for sex, violence, language, etc. Fortunately the
vast majority of articles would be fine for kids, so nobody would need to bother with those controls most of the time.<<

Right. That's for the future beyond 1.0, though. Just illustrating how the tagging expands to include as many tags as we find useful for producing subsets. If we find a need for texasSchoolBoardYes and texasCSchoolBoardNo or catholicSchooYes and catholicSchoolNo, we can add them and let those with an interest use them.

>> Another problem I see is how to deal with vandalism. It's usually easy to determine if an article edit was made in bad faith, but there's no way to tell if someone's just being a punk with their vote. I guess we'd need to restrict voting to non-newbies, which is unfortunate...<<

Not so good to restrict it. We want to start with every person, known user or not, who views an article rating it so we get lots of quality votes and it becomes hard for small groups to change ranks. Then we can use the flags described earlier to fine tune the process. Or maybe we will need qualified votes at some point. We can wait see how it goes for a while and tweak as required...

Now you see why I find the deletion arguments frustrating. There are more useful ways to solve the problem, like sorting out how to make the junk vanish from sight.:) That's done by gradually changing the default quality scale people see from minQuality1.0 to minQuality5.0 and having the Wikipedia software just not show wikilinks for anything which doesn't make the cut. Yes, my deltionist leanings are showing in the long term views of how things might evolve.:)


from_name: Martin Harper

subject:
[WikiEN-l] No vote needed for obvious nonsense (was: Rampant
	Deletionism)

body:
RickK> People like MyRedDice don't trust anyone to delete anything.

Ooh, name check! :)

I trust many people to delete many things. In particular, I'd like to compliment
Angela, who always does stirling work managing votes for deletion, and has, in my
eyes, an excellent grasp of consensus and wiki process. And there are of course
many other people who do get work keeping the cogs of Wikipedia flowing - sadly,
we only really notice them when the cogs get jammed, but I'd like to take this
moment to register my appreciation for all their hard work.

RickK was responding to this comment by Ed Poor:

Ed Poor> We trust all our sysops to know what is "obvious nonsense" -
Ed Poor> it's one of the key criteria for becoming a sysop: you've been around
Ed Poor> long enough to show that you have good judgment.

As RickK said, I don't agree with this, though not for the reasons he gives. Different
people have different ideas over what is "obvious nonsense", and with our current
deletion system, I feel that Ed's approach would cause more problems than it
solved. As people here know, I am one of the people who strongly feel that there are
better alternatives to our current deletion system and I would like to give a quick
plug (again) to:

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

Our current "deletion policy" suggests a number of categories where deletion without
listing on VfD is appropriate, including vandalism, test pages, and pages with no
meaningful content or history. Although not uncontroversial, I think this approach is
a good one - it doesn't eliminate judgement (that would be impossible), but rather
provides a framework within which to exercise judgement.

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy

-Martin "MyRedDice" Harper


from_name: Daniel Ehrenberg

subject: [Wikipedia-l] information leaflet

body:
> Is there an information leaflet (PDF) about
> Wikipedia that I can print
> and put on display at my local library?  They are
> paying for a
> subscription to Encyclopaedia Britannica online, and
> it would be nice
> to provide information on a free alternative.  It
> could also be nice
> to hear from librarians what comments they get from
> visitors when they
> recommend both Britannica and Wikipedia.
>
> The leaflet should be glossy and eye-catching with a
> nice layout.
> Printing the "Wikipedia:about" HTML page is not an
> alternative.
> It could be a single full page or a three-fold.
>
> I found an Esperanto three-fold on
>
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_promotion_material
> and I think an English translation of that (with
> other citations on
> the back) would be perfect.
>
> If more material is available elsewhere, I guess
> links should be put
> on that meta page.
>
>
> --
>   Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
>   Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se/

I just started on a direct translation of the
Esperanto brochure, but I'd like to point out that the
existing one is very out of date.
LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree


from_name: James Duffy

body:
>Erik wrote
>
>I'll just register my strong objections to a deletion moratorium for the
>record. I do not see any evidence for "rampant" deletionism and think VfD
>works reasonably well (have people agreed on a threshold, 80% or something
>like that, of votes required for deletion yet?). If you want to see
>rampant deletionism, go to Everything2.com, where pages get "nuked"
>arbitrarily and anonymously. Wikipedia's process is open, based on
>consensus-forming and well-documented policies.
>
>There are people who make even the deletion of the crappiest conceivable
>article difficult by voting to keep by default. This kind of behavior
>leads to the amassment of junk in the database, which never gets cleaned
>up because once it is gone from RC and VfD, everyone quickly forgets it.
>You might say people will eventually edit it, but in the case of the rare,
>obscure and idiosyncratic, that might very well happen years from now, if
>ever. Of course we shouldn't delete legitimate stubs, but we should remove
>articles which are in clear violation of one of our policies, be it NPOV
>or "What Wikipedia is not".
>
>Junk will still get spidered by the search engines if a single link points
>to it, nd if people come to Wikipedia and find this stuff (like Sep. 11
>articles with tributes mixed in), it will greatly lower their opinion of
>our project (in cases that I consider "fixable", the 7 days of VfD are a
>nice ultimatum for doing so). Remember that most of our new users come
>from the search engines.
>
>I am somewhat disturbed by Wikipedia 1.0 being used as an argument not to
>keep the working Wikipedia clean of junk. Both serve the same purpose. The
>goal for Wikipedia 1.0 (a limited subset for distribution) is to filter
>out the kind of stuff that is hard to verify, too obscure, offensive etc.,
>but that would go through VfD unscathed.
>
>Given the large majority support needed for deletion, I do not think that
>any kind of out-of-control deletion is to be expected. If you are the kind
>of person who thinks a "List of heterosexuals" might be useful, then you
>might feel that Wikipedia is somehow oppressing you, but if you want to
>build an encyclopedia, it is unlikely that you will.
>
>The whole idea to label one faction of Wikipedia as "deletionists" and
>another as "inclusionists" is bogus. This only makes it more difficult for
>people to reflect their own decisions and contributes to herd-like
>behavior. With very few exceptions, everyone accepts that some cleaning up
>is needed. We just need to agree on when to delete and what to remove,
>which is best done by improving, newly implementing and pointing to policy
>pages.

I agree 100% with Erik.  This proposal is absurd in the extreme. Wikipedia
finds it hard enough to keep up with the deletion of articles continually. A
ban for six months would leave a back log of hundreds if not thousands of
articles that have no place on an encyclopedia but end up surviving by
default, or else leading to a /massive/ period of deletions unprecedented in
wikipedia history. It is quite frankly the most ludicrous of ludicrous
ideas, an unworkable idea that would damage wikipedia. The ''deletionists''
against ''inclusionists'' argument is utterly bogus. It is a case of those
who take the idea that wikipedia as an encyclopedia seriously and basic
standards below which an article is deleted and those who see wikipedia as
some sort of scribblebox where any sort of rubbish, not matter how bad, has
a 'right' to be left undisturbed.

JT

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963


subject: [WikiEN-l] Rampant Deletionism

body:
>
> > Jake Nelson wrote:
> >
> >> I've seen a lot of dodging of the "what does it hurt?" question, the
>most
> >> I've seen is "it DOES hurt" or "it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia".
>The
> >> first response isn't an answer, and begs the question to be repeated.
>As to
> >> the second... what do you define an encyclopedia as? LKWR is the only
>one
> >> I've seen outline criteria (back on 10/31), 4 of which describe
>Wikipedia
> >> excellently, and I disagree with the other 2.
> >>
> >>
> > My main question is that it makes Wikipedia look ridiculous, and makes
> > information harder to find.  If I search for "Michael Jordan" and get
> > 4,000 results consisting of every person who has ever been named
> > "Michael Jordan", that's *much* less useful than the current state, and
> > a bit laughable.  Wikipedia is not a geneological database after all.
> >
>The Cunctator stated
>This is a straw man argument.

That is The Cunc's usual reply. Don't make a credible case, just call your
opponent's argument a "straw man" argument.  'Nuff said. Any chance of a
more detailed argument rather than an empty clich?, Cunc?

JT

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikipedia-l] information leaflet

body:
On Nov 8, 2003, at 21:30, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
> I just started on a direct translation of the
> Esperanto brochure, but I'd like to point out that the
> existing one is very out of date.

I updated it a bit in July for the IJK, but the numbers are a little
behind, and of course it's aimed specifically at the Esperanto-speaking
audience. A literal translation would sound rather weird. :)

Feel free to use it as a basis, of course.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Proposed: stop all deletes for 6 months,
	then	reconsider

body:
"Alex Rosen" <arosen at novell.com> schrieb:

> - They think that an Internet encyclopedia can and should cover much
> more ground as compared to a paper encyclopedia, so more things should
> be included. It's a legitimate argument - what would Funk & Wagnalls
> include if it didn't have any space constraints?

Noone is claiming that we should not be covering more ground. The question
is how much more ground we should cover.

> - The job of the current Wikipedia is not to be a perfect encyclopedia,
> but to be a source for the great "1.0" version. That version will weed
> out everything that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

I'm sorry, but I'm not writing version 1.0, I am writing Wikipedia. Version 1.0 is a nice thing to have, but it is Wikipedia that I am working on, and it is Wikipedia that I want to be good.

> Until then, it's
> counterproductive to actively delete everything that's not perfect,
> because it'll drive off too many people and will cause too much argument
> and strife. (This has nothing to do with anything having a "right" to be
> left undisturbed, it's just a pragmatic thing.)

It's also counterproductive to spend time on creating and improving things
that we are going to delete later anyway. If articles should not be on Wikipedia, we should be discouraging rather than encouraging people to write them.

And nobody is claiming anything near to that we should be "deleting everything that's not perfect" anyway. Most if not all articles are 'not perfect'. There's only a small subjection of that that some of us would like to see deleted. And that's because in their opinion they are either "so bad that improving them is equivalent to starting all over" or "of such a nature that the person would be in favor of deletion even if it were perfect".

Andre Engels


body:
"Stan Shebs" <shebs at apple.com> schrieb:

> I've never argued against the deletion of bad content, but the VfD page has
> become a stalking horse for the debate about WP's scope. That's a fine
> debate
> to have, and we should be working to develop consensus about scope; but
> instead of filling up meta with a rational discussion, we have daily
> catfights on VfD.

But such a discussion will be based on examples, whether real or fictional. And can never leave to any clear and standing rule. Whatever rule is chosen, there will always be cases that are exceptions on either side of the line (unless the outcome is an ultra-inclusionist statement to include just about anything that makes sense and gives no reason to believe it is false (and even then - how is one to define 'no reason to believe it is false' anyway?)).

> A bunch of my content these days comes from books (remember those?) rather
> than the net; and so one of these days I'm sure some moron is going to
> list one of my new articles on VfD "because it only has 20 Google hits",
> as if Google is now the only definition of human knowledge or something.

Not the only one, but it is one. There's more to judge it by - I once used google to save an article on VfD based on only one google hit (it was [[William Gott]]). A good article doesn't need google to state it is a valid subject, because the article itself says why it is.

Andre Engels


from_name: Walter Vermeir

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: IRC (walter)

body:
Ashar Voultoiz wrote:

> On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 07:36:09 -0800 (PST), Anthere wrote:
>
>>Go to http://javachat.wikipedia.be
>>
>>It is the Javachat for #nl.wikipedia
>
> <snip>
>
> Hello,
>
> Maybe this feature might be implemented for all wikis ? :0)  Chating while
> working on an article might be usefull.
>
> :0)

There is also a cgi-chat but it does not work.
And the "wikchatbot". It logs all activity on the channel and puts it on
  http://chatlogs.wikipedia.be

It is made by user Wilinckx

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/gebruiker:Wilinckx/wikchatbot
--
Contact: walter AT wikipedia PUNT be
Ook een artikeltje schrijven? WikipediaNL, de vrije GNU/FDL encyclopedie
http://www.wikipedia.be


body:
>The links can be created by the maintenance/rebuildlinks.php script
>that's part of the wikipedia software.
>
>
Hum, i'll try to run it... Must first grab sources, of course.
It'd be nice to be able to grab the tables without needing to install
php & stuff before, though :)
(just my 2 cents of ?)

>Regards,
>
>JeLuF
>
>
Nicolas


subject: [WikiEN-l] wikipedia:deleted test

body:
> tag the article with a link to a help page for the expeditious
> deletion reason or a page covering the reason why something is
> considered a VfD candidate.

In other words, use

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:deleted_test

It's been there for a while now, and hasn't got a lot of use, because
most people seem to prefer VfD. If someone wants to breathe new
life into the idea... well, be bold! :)

-Martin


from_name: Lars Aronsson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] information leaflet

body:
Is there an information leaflet (PDF) about Wikipedia that I can print
and put on display at my local library?  They are paying for a
subscription to Encyclopaedia Britannica online, and it would be nice
to provide information on a free alternative.  It could also be nice
to hear from librarians what comments they get from visitors when they
recommend both Britannica and Wikipedia.

The leaflet should be glossy and eye-catching with a nice layout.
Printing the "Wikipedia:about" HTML page is not an alternative.
It could be a single full page or a three-fold.

I found an Esperanto three-fold on
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_promotion_material
and I think an English translation of that (with other citations on
the back) would be perfect.

If more material is available elsewhere, I guess links should be put
on that meta page.

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se/


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
The point is this - I want facts to be represented in the entry.
1) Muslims firebombed a train.
2) This triggered off riots.
3) Both Muslims and Hindus died in the ensuing riots with Muslim
casualties outnumbering the Hindu casualties.

Ok on 2 and 3, but 1 is just not factually established. Additionally I
think the article needs to mention the ambient political athmosphere that
produced 2 and 3 (regardless of the cause of 1). Adequately describing that
athmosphere involves discussion of the Hindu Nationalist government of
Gujurat and the climate of polarization which exists.

Fred


body:
>Ray Saintonge < saintonge at telus.net > wrote:
>
>> I doubt that the participants ever gave any serious thought to
>> communism in deciding to riot.
>
>You have not understood what the discussion is about. It is not
>about the intent of the rioters, but the MISREPRESENTATION of
>events.
>
>I see that you have already taken sides and decided that Muslims
>must be peaceful people while Hindus are violent people. Perhaps
>you have observed that Hindus go all around the world placing
>explosives in markets and slamming planes into buildings.
>
>-libertarian

Neither do Muslims. (Now consider why that statement is true....)

Fred


subject: [Wikipedia-l] information leaflet

body:
--- Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 2003, at 21:30, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
> > I just started on a direct translation of the
> > Esperanto brochure, but I'd like to point out that
> the
> > existing one is very out of date.
>
> I updated it a bit in July for the IJK, but the
> numbers are a little
> behind, and of course it's aimed specifically at the
> Esperanto-speaking
> audience. A literal translation would sound rather
> weird. :)
>
> Feel free to use it as a basis, of course.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

Yeah, now that I've started, I'm changing several
sections completely that relate only to the Esperanto
wikipedia.
LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikipedia-l] french stuff

body:
--- Yann Forget <yann at forget-me.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi all,
>
> Following my demand, the Ouvaton cooperative has
> offered to host a read only
> mirror of the French Wikipedia with a budget of 1000
> euros for a year in
> hardware and bandwidth. For that it is necessary
> that a non profit
> organisation to be set up in France. I drafted a
> project of status for this
> according to French law. It is available at
>
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip?dia:Statuts_pour_une_association_en_France
>
> Please, could you opinion on this ? And specially on
>
> * special links between this French law organisation
> should have with the
> Wikimedia foundation;
> * technical setup you would recommend.
>
> Regards,
> Yann

For information, Yann was willing to have the french
association up before the end of november 2003, to
host fr.ouvaton.wikipedia.fr. The server would host
the french wikipedia only.

Yann, if you want to exercice a RightToFork, it is
your absolute right, and we do not have anything to
say about that. What is really important to us is the
diffusion of knowledge, and mirors can only be a help
to do so :-)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [WikiFR-l] Hébergement_chez Ouvaton

body:
> Anthere, pourquoi es-tu si n?gative ?

just as usual

to slow down hasty decisions

> Le Sunday 09 November 2003 17:33, Anthere a ?crit :
> > > > > >Quelle est la proc?dure maintenant ?
> > > > >
> > > > > c'est nouveau pour nous, faut que je vois.
> on va
> > > > > faire ?a vite.
> > > >
> > > > Pourquoi vite ? Ou est l urgence pr?cisemment
> ?
> > >
> > > En fait, Ouvaton avait pris cette d?cision il y
> a au
> > > moins une semaine d?j?,
> > > mais ils viennent seulement de m'en informer,
> apr?s
> > > que je les ai relanc?.
> >
> > Je ne vois toujours pas en quoi nous serions
> press?s
> > et n aurions pas le temps d en discuter
> > tranquillement, d un point de vue international.
>
> Mais je n'ai pas dit qu'il y avait urgence. C'est
> toi qui a interpr?t? les
> choses de cette fa?on.

Yann said "But I didnot say there was urgency. It is
you who interpretated things that way"

Sure Yann

In this mail,
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikifr-l/2003-November/000992.html

you write "c'est nouveau pour nous, faut que je vois.
on va faire ?a vite."

->it is new to us, I have to consider this. We will
have to do this very quickly

And in this mail, you suggest the first assembly to
take place on the 22 nd of november, and that
meanwhile, we should agree on status, board and other
minor problems
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikifr-l/2003-November/000996.html

But undoubtely, it was just interpretation

> > Il ne me semble pas que nous ayons a suivre
> Ouvaton
> > dans leurs objectifs.
>
> ??? Que veux-tu dire ? Le seul objectif d'Ouvaton,
> c'est d'aider Wikip?dia.
> Faut arr?ter la parano.

Yann said that the only goal of Ouvaton was to help
Wikipedia, and that I was paranoid in saying we did
not  have to be hasty just because Ouvaton had agreed
to host us (and could perhaps change their mind if we
took too much time)

I know very few commercial firms that would do things
for free. There is always an interest. In that case,
the adress being ouvaton.wikipedia.fr for example.

Do we want that ?

> > > Les serveurs de Ouvaton sont ? Paris.
> > >
> > > > Et pour mon autre question : qui aura la
> > > > responsabilit? l?gale en cas de probl?me ?
> > >
> > > C'est une bonne question. ;o)
> > > Peut-on d?cider de qui aura la responsabilit?
> l?gale
> > > du miroir ?
> > > Je n'en sais rien. Perso, ?a ne m'inqui?te pas
> > > tellement pour l'instant.
> >
> > moi oui.
> > Il y a du mat?riel sur fr qui ne respecte pas les
> lois
> > fran?aises
>
> Peux-tu pr?ciser ?

I said to Yann we had some material on the french
wikipedia that could be problematic with french law,
and that it could be eventually a problem.

He asked me to be more precise.

-> Fair use is not a doctrine recognised in France

> > > Je suis pr?t ? prendre cette responsabilit? si
> > > n?cessaire.
> >
> > Tu as des connaissances l?gales ?
>
> J'ai l'exp?rience de g?rer des associations et du
> droit d'auteur, en
> particulier li? ? Internet.

I asked Yann who would have legal responsability in
case of a problem (such as copyright issues). He said
he was ready to carry that responsability. I asked him
if he had legal knowledge. He answered he was
experienced in managing information, author rights, in
particular as related to Internet.

Fair use as well ?

> > Pour quelles raisons serait tu jug? responsable
> par la
> > loi d actions ill?gales commises par les autres ?
>
> C'est pour cela que le probl?me ne se pose pas pour
> l'instant.
> En particlier, pas dans les termes que tu sembles
> sugg?rer.

I asked why he would be as an individual responsible
for our legal issues. He answered there were no
problem right now.

> > > Le probl?me, c'est plut?t : que doit-on copier
> sur
> > > le miroir ?
> > > 1. Tout.
> > > 2. Uniquement les articles encyclop?diques.
> > > 3. Une selection des articles encyclop?diques.
> > > 4. ?
> >
> > la r?ponse est ?vidente. A mes yeux. Une
> association
> > francaise est soumise a la loi francaise
> > si elle veut ne pas etre attaqu?e puis condamnee,
> elle
> > doit respecter la loi
>
> Tout ? fait, mais ma question n'est pas li?e ? un
> probl?me juridique, mais
> encyclop?dique.

He asked what would be copied on the miror,
everything, only encyclopedic articles, a selection of
encyclopedic articles

That is a good question :-)
Who would do the job of selecting the articles every
night ? :)

> > donc, nous ne pouvons pas y mettre tout.
> > Qui va s occuper de faire le tri ?
>
> Je propose des solutions en fonctions des
> informations que j'ai.
> Rien n'est d?cid?, en particulier, pour les
> questions techniques.
>
> > Mais pourquoi toute la communaut? a t elle a etre
> impliqu?e ?
>
> J'entends bien que c'est un projet de Wikip?dia, pas
> un projet personnel.
> C'est pourquoi il faut cr?er une association.

I asked why the whole community had to be involved in
a simple mirror setting ?
He said it was not a personal project and that was why
we had to create an association

I say that is why we have to talk about it before
creating an association

> > Oui. A ce propos, Jimbo appr?cierait qu'on lui
> parle
> > un peu de ce projet. Je pense qu'il serait pas mal
> que
> > Yann parle de ceci sur la
> wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
>
> C'est fait. Brion est d?j? au courant car je lui ai
> demand? des infos
> techniques.

and what are the answers ? Brion ?

> > Wikipedia.org est un projet international. Commun.
> > Avec 40 langues diff?rentes. Pas un projet franco
> > fran?ais. Ce que tu es en train de proposer.
>
> Non, c'est simplement un miroir de la partie
> francophone.

I said that wikipedia was one project in several
languages, not several encyclopedia, and that what he
was suggesting was a french-french project (the server
will only host french wikipedia).

He answered that no, it was only a mirror of the
french wikipedia.

In this mail
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikifr-l/2003-November/001004.html

you specifically say that this is a temporary solution
before we set a read and write server

> > D'un point de vue technique, il me semble avoir
> > compris que la mise en place de pls serveurs
> poserait
> > plus de pb qu'il n'en r?soudrait.
>
> S'ils sont en lecture et ?criture, oui. En lecture
> simple, non.

I said I understood that I understood there would be
more pb raised than pb solved by the proposition (I
personnnaly do not know)

He says, not if the server is read only.

But here In this mail
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikifr-l/2003-November/001004.html

he says read is only temporary

what are the technical issues in both cases then ?

> > Je pense que ce que tu proposes est un RightToFork
>
> Non.

This should not need translation.
What is the argument ?

> > En bref, demain, plus besoin du serveur am?ricain
> > l'encyclop?die est franco-fran?aise et le reste du
> > projet ne nous importe plus.
>
> Anthere, peux-tu ?tre POSITIVE de temps en temps ?

He says I should be positive sometimes :-)

He is right of course :-)))

> Je r?p?te si je n'ai pas ?t? assez clair.
> J'ai fait des propositions. J'attends des
> contre-propositions. Pas des
> r?futations ou des blocages pour le plaisir.

He says he is doing propositions; he waits counter
propositions, not blocking just for pleasure

I apology Yann, but I do not do this for pleasure, but
out of interest and concern for the project. I think
any proposition should be dissected before being
accepted, and who would dissect your proposition but
me ? :-)

What I do is discussion, to reach consensus. That is
the way we do on Wikipedia. I see not where your
problem is with it.

> Yann
> - --
> http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur
> la non-violence
> http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclop?die libre
> http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et
> services Linux
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [WikiFR-l] Read only mirror in Paris & French law
	non profitorganisation

body:
--- "Alex T." <alex756 at nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> Excuse me for writing this in English, but I don't
> have
> the time to try and work on writing it in French and
> I am responding to Anthere's post which was in
> English.

that is ok. This should be global discussion

> Perhaps Jimbo should be contacted as Wikimedia
> is the owner of all rights to the Wikipedia name,
> also the question of French copyright law is then
> compounded with American copyright law as there
> is simultaneous publication in both countries? Or
> will
> it be a mirror only, i.e. if you submit an edit on
> the
> French server it will first be recorded on the US
> server?

Initially, it will be so. Discussions are over the
frequency of database update. Perhaps every night. I
do not understand how we can really work on a
wikipedia, where edits are on en and reading on fr,
only updated once (or even more) a day. Does that mean
we have to edit a page to see its real content ?

> Otherwise a french not-for-profit that donates to
> the
> US not-for-profit and also supports a mirror might
> be a good way to get tax exempt status in the EU
> (though I am not in any way knowledgeable about
> tax implications in the EU), i.e. will a French
> organization
> that accept charitable donations also be charitable
> (and
> hence tax exempt) in Great Britain for example?

The association 1901 can not receive donations. It can
receive members fees (we can have members of honor I
guess to turn the problem). To be exempted itself, it
must ask specifically to be so and be granted to be
so.

That is very heavy afterwards because there are some
controls over how money is used; I know not who would
take care of these money issue, but my understanding
(from my Iaal sister and father-in law) is that it is
not to neglect

Or
> is
> it like the US, some application will need to be
> made in
> each tax jurisdiction? If there can be one
> recognized
> charity that has Wikipedia as a patron in the EU
> that would
> be good (and also convenient for sending donations
> to
> one central body). Of course an agreement would have
> to be worked out with Wikimedia Foundation (USA) and
> Fondation Wikimedia (France) to determine their
> respective
> rights and obligations.
>
> Alex T. Roshuk (Alex756) (IAAL but it's NALO!)

In short, this is not simple and I doubt it can be set
before the 22nd of november. That is all I say

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Partial solution to rampant deletionism

body:
Bjorn Lindqvist wrote:

>How totally sweet wouldn't it be to have a
>COMPLETE list of every single person that was killed in the Holocaust?
>Their birth place, age, relatives.. maybe even what jobs they had
>had. Then we write articles about their relatives and why they werent
>killed in the Holocaust too.
>
>Just think about it... 6 million people, confirmable detailed
>biographical information. If that happens WP can move mountains. The
>Holocaust deniers would look quite stupid (as if they don't already!)
>when everyone can copy 6 million biographies from WP!
>
Why stop there?  There were an estimated 51 million fatalities in WWII.
 There is no need to limit this to a subset that represents less than
12% of these mostly innocent people. :-)

Ec


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Setting a new server in France for french wikipedia

body:
--- Yann Forget <yann at forget-me.net> wrote:
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikifr-l/2003-November/000992.html
> >
> > you write "c'est nouveau pour nous, faut que je
> vois.
> > on va faire ?a vite."
> >
> > ->it is new to us, I have to consider this. We
> will
> > have to do this very quickly
>
> No, I didn't say that. Alexis from Ouvaton said that
> because they decided to
> help Wikipedia already some time ago but informed me
> of their decision only
> Saturday 8th (yesterday) after I asked him again.
> You should read more
> carefully before making accusation, please.

You are absolutely right Yann, so I deeply apology

I regret though, that WE have to hurry because Ouvaton
suggests that we do. What is there interest in pushing
them to go quickly ? What do they gain in hosting us ?

Again, where is the hurry ?
What is cooking on the fire ?
Why could not it wait a few months ?
Does it have anything to do with fr.Wikipedia
presented as Wikipedia France at Crao Autrans, with a
meeting organised in january, where you will present
the project ?

I am just asking questions

> > And in this mail, you suggest the first assembly
> to
> > take place on the 22 nd of november, and that
> > meanwhile, we should agree on status, board and
> other
> > minor problems
> >
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikifr-l/2003-November/000996.html
> >
> > But undoubtely, it was just interpretation
>
> It's a proposition. Again I never said that there is
> any urgency.
> Why don't you simply propose another schedule ?

Let me propose another schedule

10th of september 2004

(that is my birth day, a good day)

> > I know very few commercial firms that would do
> things
> > for free. There is always an interest. In that
> case,
> > the adress being ouvaton.wikipedia.fr for example.
>
> Ouvaton is not a commercial firm. It's a cooperative
> of webmasters.

Why would they host us for free ?

> > I said to Yann we had some material on the french
> > wikipedia that could be problematic with french
> law,
> > and that it could be eventually a problem.
> >
> > He asked me to be more precise.
> >
> > -> Fair use is not a doctrine recognised in France
>
> There is an equivalent. We have to see how it is
> applicable.
>
> [cut]

I do not think so. And the "we" is precisely the
problem. Who is "we" ?

Do you expect me to spent again dozen of hours with
Loo and others to fix everything ?

> > I said that wikipedia was one project in several
> > languages, not several encyclopedia, and that what
> he
> > was suggesting was a french-french project (the
> server
> > will only host french wikipedia).
> >
> > He answered that no, it was only a mirror of the
> > french wikipedia.
> >
> > In this mail
> >
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikifr-l/2003-November/001004.html
> >
> > you specifically say that this is a temporary
> solution
> > before we set a read and write server
> >
> > I said I understood that I understood there would
> be
> > more pb raised than pb solved by the proposition
> (I
> > personnnaly do not know)
> >
> > He says, not if the server is read only.
> >
> > But here In this mail
> >
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikifr-l/2003-November/001004.html
> >
> > he says read is only temporary
> >
> > what are the technical issues in both cases then ?
>
> I mean that this read only mirror of the French wp
> would be an experiment.
> If it works well, then we can think about making a
> read-write mirror (and
> maybe for other languages too) which is much more
> complicated, and even not
> possible.
> Technical questions have to be decided.
> I only made proposition which can be changed.

The miror issue is something I can not really
understand well. I am not able to judge whether it
will provide more hassle than removing some. I expect
there are plenty of people here that will be ready to
spent a lot of time to fix all that.

However, I do not understand why the association
should be set up in such a hasty and unprepared way
just because there is a very short deadline expected
to set the miror

I wonder if there is no other way that a miror could
be installed without setting up immediately an
association

I also wonder (and this is no news for you) who is
gonna write all the association goals, do the
paperworks (not only at creation, but afterwards as
well), what is the legal relationship with wikimedia,
who is gonna take care of money "subventions" and so
one.

The technical point is ONE point, the association is
another. You are considering that we should accept the
association as such, just because we should accept the
mirror.
> > > > Je pense que ce que tu proposes est un
> RightToFork
> > >
> > > Non.
> >
> > This should not need translation.
> > What is the argument ?
>
> For me, it is clear that the whole of Wikipedia has
> to agree before doing
> anything.

I am glad to hear that.

> > He says he is doing propositions; he waits counter
> > propositions, not blocking just for pleasure
> >
> > I apology Yann, but I do not do this for pleasure,
> but
> > out of interest and concern for the project. I
> think
> > any proposition should be dissected before being
> > accepted, and who would dissect your proposition
> but
> > me ? :-)
> >
> > What I do is discussion, to reach consensus. That
> is
> > the way we do on Wikipedia. I see not where your
> > problem is with it.
>
> I made propositions. You didn't.
> You just refuted my propositions.
> Please make counter-propositions including schedule,
> technical questions and
> management.

This is a poor argument Yann. You are the one making a
proposition. That is your job to convince us, not my
job to make another proposition.

Still, proposition : what about waiting till that new
server is there and working ? All the tech people
discussing mirrors on the tech list for a good couple
of months instead of 10 days ? And taking the next 6
months to set a proper proposition for association ?

I think I asked you more than ample questions on irc
(thank god !) and french ml.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree


from_name: Adam Bishop

body:
Why not have entries about everyone who has ever died?  An encyclopedia with
billions of pages would be fine because it's not paper, right?

>From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: bjrn.lindqvist at telia.com,English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Partial solution to rampant deletionism
>Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 10:21:38 -0800
>
>Bjorn Lindqvist wrote:
>
>>How totally sweet wouldn't it be to have a
>>COMPLETE list of every single person that was killed in the Holocaust?
>>Their birth place, age, relatives.. maybe even what jobs they had
>>had. Then we write articles about their relatives and why they werent
>>killed in the Holocaust too.
>>
>>Just think about it... 6 million people, confirmable detailed
>>biographical information. If that happens WP can move mountains. The
>>Holocaust deniers would look quite stupid (as if they don't already!)
>>when everyone can copy 6 million biographies from WP!
>>
>Why stop there?  There were an estimated 51 million fatalities in WWII.
>There is no need to limit this to a subset that represents less than 12% of
>these mostly innocent people. :-)
>
>Ec
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/photos&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca


from_name: Bjorn Lindqvist

body:
Axel Rosen wrote:

> I used to be a deletionist, and in fact I still am, but I've moved my
> deletionist stance to the eventual "1.0" version. Let's face it - the
> current Wikipedia is great for compiling a large quantity of pretty good
> (on average) information. It's lousy at compiling consistently very good
> information. So why try? Only a more structured project will ever

Yes. Yes. YEES!! Oh pleease give me some of that!

Ahem.. I wholeheartedly agree.

In time you'll be the champions of Wikipedia because we will need an
armada of "deletionists" (but they will be called content managers) if
we want WP to be ready for printed/CD distribution. But for now, WP is
to chaotic for it to be fixed anyway. So for now, let the kids
play. (but no "joe is gay" ofcourse)

BL