subject:
[WikiEN-l] Next experiment: switch off AFD for a month. (was
	Guardian in defense of Wikipedia)

body:
On 12/11/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 12/10/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The only way to avoid the appearance of unencyclopedic
> > articles on Wikipedia and their persistence on Wikipedia is to disable
> > article creation.  Or we can admit the obvious: that Wikipedia is a
> > work in progress.
>
> Moreover, I'd say AFD is a horrible solution for "bad articles".  The
> vast majority of "bad articles" deleted via AFD, which don't already
> fall under a speedy deletion criterion, could easily be either changed
> into a redirect or into a good, albeit short, article (usually on an
> obscure subject).
>
> If you're saying we can't afford to carry good short articles on
> obscure subjects, well, I disagree there.  We can afford to do it, and
> it doesn't require lowering our standards at all.

Yes.

> One thing we should probably introduce in this area though is that
> articles which do not provide any references should be speedy
> deletions.  Now there are probably a whole lot of good articles out
> there right now which would fit that, so for now let's make the CSD
> criterion only for articles caught in the first 48 hours.  And let's
> require the user who created the article to be informed of the
> deletion on her talk page.

Now this, while a rather draconian policy, is at least not inimical to
the nature of Wikipedia, as AfD is. Of course, I'd rather that people
be expected to make a good-faith effort to find a reference before
deleting.

I really would like the software to make referencing easier.

Again, I think that having the edit summary be mandatory for non-minor
edits would be a very good idea.


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] Structured discussion of AFD

body:
On 12/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know what others think, but I feel the mailing list discussion
> on this whole AFD issue isn't structured. Lot of people are sharing
> their opinion, but after a few days of discussion we still don't seem
> to get to a middle ground.
>
> By organizing a discussion structured as a compact "finding of the
> facts", I hope to find out where our opinions differ so we can address
> them directly.
>
> Please visit my discussion page where I have up a few points on what I
> see the current state of AFD. Please join in:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MacGyverMagic/Deletion/Reform

Somehow I think this would work better managed by someone without an
axe to grind. (I.e., not you or me.) Then, those without an axe to
grind probably don't care.


from_name: Barry

subject: [WikiEN-l] Poor quality in most linked articles

body:
I've been challenging myself to find problems with the top regular articles
listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Mostlinked and I'm 4 for 4 so
far. I've fixed basic problems in the following articles that any decent
editor should have been able to catch:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Fair_use
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law

Maybe the editors here should pay more attention to the most linked
articles.

If anyone wants to challenge me to find a problem with an article, just name
it. This is still fun for now, but it's not making me feel any better about
Wikipedia.

Barry
http://www.polisource.com

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/195 - Release Date: 12/8/2005


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Undeletion service

body:
On 12/13/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 12/12/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> > Tony Sidaway wrote:
> > > On 12/12/05, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
> > >>David Gerard stated for the record:
> >
> > >>>I hereby declare that I will make deleted content (apart from copyvios
> > >>>etc) available for reading. Of course, using it to recreate the deleted
> > >>>content is speedyable, and using it to keep it hanging around in your
> > >>>userspace may get you penalised as Anthony was for doing so. But that's
> > >>>what you do with it afterwards.
> >
> > >>Watch out, David.  The AfD crew is vicious -- defy them in public like
> > >>this, and I won't be surprised to see that you've been put up for
> > >>deletion, Arbiter or not.
> > >>And by the bye, I've extended the same offer for quite some time now.
> >
> > > Me too.  I'll get around to putting it on my userpage one of these days.
> >
> >
> > I've just added the following to my page. Other admins should feel free
> > to do so also.
> >
> >
> > ==Undeletion==
> >
> > If you need access to a Wikipedia article that has been deleted, ask me.
> > If it's not a copyright violation, libel or similar, I will make the
> > text available to you. This is because [[WP:DRV|deletion review]] is
> > infected with a crippling case of [[m:Instruction creep|process]] [[ISO
> > 9000|fetishisation]] over [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an
> > encyclopedia|product]] that ignores the actual [[Wikipedia:deletion
> > policy|]] and is in need of being made [[WP:IAR|ignorable]].
> >
> > Note that using the text to recreate the deleted content is speedyable,
> > and using it to keep it hanging around in your userspace has gotten
> > editors penalised before. But that's your problem.
> >
> >
> > [and if Anthony sends me a request a day I will at least raise an eyebrow]
> >
> >
> > - d.
>
> One a day?  But there are hundreds of deletions every day that I'd
> like to see.  :)
>
> Why can't some admin just write a bot to get them all, and email them
> to me.  I promise I won't tell anyone who you are (use an anonymous
> remailer if you don't trust me, they still have those right?).
>
> Anthony

Hmm a lot were pulled after people used them for spam.

--
geni


from_name: Blackcap

subject: [WikiEN-l] So, is there a lag in getting posted?

body:
Also, if you're using gmail (not sure about other clients), when you

> send an email to the list, you won't see it in your inbox until
> someone responds to it (though there may be a way to change this in
> preferences). A good way of finding out if your mail has been sent is
> to check the archives: http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/
>
> Cormac
>

Brilliant, thanks.


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Mattis Manzel

subject: [Wikitech-l] WikiMusic

body:
+ world-jam-wiki http://www.communitywiki.org/odd/WorldJamWiki/HomePage

mattis

effeietsanders-list schrieb:

>hi Gregory, thank you for your imput,
>
>2005/12/12, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com>:
>
>
>>On 12/12/05, effeietsanders-list <effeietsanders.l at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The WikiMusic wiki has to *allow for growth*. Not just for experts, but
>>>rather also for people with little knowledge of the software.
>>>Lilypond<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_LilyPond>is at the moment
>>>still too difficult, too technical, for this purpose. Maybe
>>>there are possibilities to make it easier to enter scores into a Wiki.
>>>
>>>
>>Maybe
>>
>>
>>>it is possible to integrate some kind of keyboard (java applet) in the
>>>software, and have the software rewrite it into Lilypond-like formats.
>>>Perhaps a (java) applet to drag and drop the notes into the score can be
>>>developed, so a full score can be reproduced in a Wiki. And that such
>>>
>>>
>>will
>>
>>
>>>be transcribed into the Lilypond format automatically is our dream.
>>>
>>>
>>Saying Lilypond is hard is like saying wikitext is hard.
>>Lilypond is just one step above ABC and much more expressive, anything
>>else would not be sufficient to produce and maintain a professional
>>quality score.
>>
>>I'm not convinced.
>>
>>
>
>
>In short: I want not only "proffessionals" to add their information, but
>also people with little knowledge of music. This is very hard with Lilypond.
>Please take a look into http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/talk:Wikimusic_II for
>further discussion we already had.
>
>
>
>>WikiMusic must, last but not least, be *able to survive*. Not only with
>>its
>>
>>
>>>envisioned community, but also with a protection from vandals. It may
>>>
>>>
>>prove
>>
>>
>>>to be be hard to maintain the usual wiki-way here. Some brainstorming
>>>
>>>
>>about
>>
>>
>>>this issue needs to be done. How can vandals be checked best, by a mere
>>>possibility of *listening to the differences* perhaps?
>>>
>>>
>>Most people qualified to edit such work would be able to visually
>>qualify such changes.. How could you expect to help out if you can't
>>read music?  For such a project all changes should be clearly
>>explained. I don't see the problem with regular wiki procedures.
>>
>>
>
>
>If there come a lot of edits, it'll be hard to determine if a edit is okey
>or not. I'm not saying it has to be done the way I mentioned, but that we
>have to think about it.
>
>
>
>>You can help with this! Today a proposal is posted on meta
>>
>>
>>>(http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects#Wikimusic_II
>>>and http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimusic_II), and there are still a
>>>
>>>
>>lot
>>
>>
>>>of technical issues to be solved.
>>>
>>>
>>It is almost always mistake to ever think that technical issues are
>>nearly as big as social or resource issues or to think that good
>>technical decisions can solve problems of those sort.
>>
>>There is already a great public domain score site, Mutopia. Tell us
>>why what you propose would be worth anyones time when mutopia already
>>exists?
>>
>>
>
>
>There are even more small projects on the web, and the few I found, probably
>not even 10 % of them, don't have the infrastucture I would like to see in a
>wikimusic-like project. For example, they seem to have no talkpages, they
>seem to have no recent changes, they seem to have no "real music" files.
>They don't have possibilities for entering musin in an easy way as well, nor
>a way to find the music you search, as a non-musician.
>
>I just hope so much that the music will no longer be limited to a small
>group of people, that everybody can enjoy it. I hope so much that if I have
>a tune in my head, and I want to find out whitch one it is, how it is
>calles, and who composed it, I can easely find it. Through a WikiMusic.
>
>I really recommend you to take a look at
>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/talk:Wikimusic_II , because some of the
>things you mentioned are already discussed over there. (As well as some
>legal issues). If you think there might be some problems, please add them.
>
>greetings, Effeietsanders
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>

___________________________________________________________
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de


from_name: Adrian Buehlmann

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Stupid Mediawiki Tricks: logical templates

body:
"Tels" wrote:
> [snip]
> I can see it now:
>
> * After {{{qif}}, somebody implements loops.

Very very unlikely. Would need anything like jumping to some label.
If something is ridiculous, then it's this.

> * Soon lexial scoping, the switch statement and subroutines follow.

Switch is already there: [[en:Template:Switch]].
Subroutines also (quite for a while :-).

> * 5 days later the wiki-template system is turing-complete.

Ouch!

> * 2 days later a careless placed "{" triggers an endless loop and
>   brings wikipedia down for 2 3/4 hours, until the bug is fixed.

Your confidence in WikiMedia software seems not to be that huge.

> * 1 hour later JoeCleverProgrammer posts his brainfuck-interpreter,
>    done entirely with "clever" templates in wikitext.
> * a week later the first page consisting only of curly braces, the
>   pipe symbol, spaces and newlines is spotted. When viewed in a
>   browser, it renders as "kilroy was here", due to a clever abuse of
>   templates, variables, bugs and some unrelated accident involving a
>   pound of butter, a slippery server room floor and an unfortunately
> placed button.

And then all aficionados of qif are burnt at the stake after
a furious witch-hunt.

> Joking aside, IMHO, if that sort of (ab)use of templates continues,
> soon the only people qualified to edit pages will be programmers. The
> wikisyntax is a success because it is so easy and
> maintainable/readable by mere humans. Crafting "clever" systems on
> top of it will merely make normal humans go away as they will not be
> able to understand this stuff even after staring on the curly mess
> for an hour.

qif is not a curly mess.

No. All that hot stuff is packaged securely inside if/qif. And there are
enough gurus that understand this and can maintain it. It's already very
stable. And using if/qif (especially qif) does not require a MSc in brainfuck.
And it will be implemented in the template syntax anyway, sooner or later.

> Case in point is that regular contributors to smaller wikis already
> struggle with the table syntax or even simple templates. Variable
> substitution and conditional template inclusion will break their
> little minds.

The wast majority of users will never touch or even look at those templates
that use if/qif. They just use [[en:template:book reference]] (or whatever).

And nobody will ever be pressed to use if/qif. It's an add-on, not a replacement.

--
Adrian
[[en:User:Adrian Buehlmann]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] 3RR blocks and admin immunity

body:
On 12/13/05, Leif Knutsen <vyerllc at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not even going to bother to go into why a recent 3RR block of me was
> unjust and unwarranted, and probably abusive. What interests me more is what
> appears to be the immunity enjoyed by admins. I reported one of you for
> vandalism three times in the last few days, documented the three specific
> instances and countless others, and nobody (except the perp) even responded,
> let alone acted on the complaint.
>
> I'm just curious: how many cases have there been of an admin being subject
> to disciplinary action, either in the form of blocks, long-term blocks,
> being deprived of admin rights, or outright expulsion? What I see - even
> from admins I have learned to respect - is that admins generally stand up
> for each other first and last, whether they harbor reservations after the
> fact.
>
> Leif

Under the 3RR I've blocked 5 admins. Two of those cases resulted in
further actions which in tern cuased the admin to be de admined. There
is at least one block of an admin under the 3RR that was not carried
out by me.

--
geni


from_name: Chris Jenkinson

body:
Leif Knutsen wrote:
> I'm just curious: how many cases have there been of an admin being subject
> to disciplinary action, either in the form of blocks, long-term blocks,
> being deprived of admin rights, or outright expulsion? What I see - even
> from admins I have learned to respect - is that admins generally stand up
> for each other first and last, whether they harbor reservations after the
> fact.
>
> Leif

I invite you to look at the completed Requests for Arbitration[1], a
number of which have involved sanctions against admins, such as
Karmafist may be blocked for using admin powers on Pigsonthewing,
Stevertigo having his adminship removed, Everyking is banned from a
number of pages. There's others too.

Chris

1. http://tinyurl.com/cc9pj


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Account creation spike on enwiki after anonymous
	page creation got disabled

body:
On 12/9/05, Dori <slowpoke at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/9/05, ?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason <avarab at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I made a plot[1] of account creations on the English Wikipedia based
> > on Newuserlog data, there has been quite a spike since anonymous page
> > creation got disabled, although the numbers are a bit inaccurate since
> > it has also been in the press lately.
> >
> > [1]: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Account_creations_on_the_English_Wikipedia.png
>
> Time to start selling low UID accounts on eBay. Just in time for the
> fundraising too.
>
I wonder what UID #31 would go for...


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: SPOV threatens NPOV

body:
On 12/13/05, stevertigo <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I actually am so glad that I don't have to
> > believe...
>
> I have been trolled! (I had thought it beneath you.) I
> will go have a nice day now.

I really don't know where you're going here. Tone aside, I was making
the very serious point that the evidence that the scientific method
works, people's opinions aside, should be pretty obvious to anyone
enjoying the fruits of technological progress.

> > Not even for the sake of argument?
>
> Not even for that. Its just too advanced for me.
> Particularly on tha internet.
>
> > > No denigration was implied.
> > Ah. I used my intuition there.
>
> Well, you were wrong to. You may have been 'right' in
> the self-fulfilling prophetic sense of predicting
> future discussion, but you were entirely off the mark
> about the subject of said denigration. Thats an
> intuition.
>
> Anyway, you can forget I mentioned it. It was a topic
> brought up in good faith and not as a personal attack.
> Why you seem to have made it one I dunno.

I didn't.


body:
On 12/13/05, stevertigo <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Oh please dont bring up ME in this, Mr. "due to time
> restriants I only cheak reported violations" and "Yes
> I should have blocked the other party but it wasn't
> reported" and "I was contacterble by email for as long
> as the block lasted."
>
> If you want to defend the process of enforcing da
> rulez, it might help matters if you actually followed
> the rules in doing so.
>

You know I've carried out dozens of blocks under the 3RR. I think I
know how to inforce the rules. You knew of the other case and yet you
never emailed me about it. You never emailed me at all. Of course you
didn't have to. You could have emailed any admin and asked to be
unblocked. This has happened (either once or twice I think twice but
it's been a long time)

> Granted its a sticky issue and one which we all forsaw
> when 3RR was first started. The "equal treatment"
> clause began as a core requirement and now (judging by
> how easily you and others dismiss it) its just an
> overlooked footnote.
>
> Stevertigo

Both you and your oponet were blocked as soon as reports were brought to light.

--
geni


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: James R. Johnson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Logo switching

body:
It's fixed now.  Thanks.  I was wondering if it were possible to add a
feature that the administrators of the wiki could have a link from the
"special pages" page to a "logo" page where the administrator could upload a
logo, separate from other images, and automatically protected.  That way,
the upload is immediate and protected from vandalism.

James

-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Angela
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 2:46 AM
To: wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Logo switching

On 12/12/05, James R. Johnson <modean52 at comcast.net> wrote:
> That's already been done, but the old logo is still up.

Assuming you're talking about <http://ang.wiktionary.org/>, I'm
guessing it's not enabled there since the image is uploaded correctly.
Submitting a request on bugzilla.wikimedia.org would probably be the
quickest way of getting it to work.

Angela.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikitech-l] Obstetrician needed for 7 new Wikipedias

body:
I would like to second this request.

Of these, Banyumasan and Samogitian have been waiting a particularly long time.

Mark

On 13/12/05, Arbeo M <arbeo_m at yahoo.de> wrote:
> There have been quite a few requests for Wikipedias in new languages in the recent months.
>
>  All of them have been examined carefully and they were broadly discussed by the community.
>
>  Seven of them have qualified. They are considered promising and useful projects and a very clear majority of users is convinced that they will be a beneficial extension of the Wikipedia family.
>
>   However, before those babies can grow and prosper we need a specialist to assist their births.
>
>   In other words: I'd like to ask you to create the wikis specified below please.
>
>   * Nedersaksisch: nds-nl.wikipedia.org   [Netherlands Low Saxon]
>
>  * Romani: rmy.wikipedia.org   [Vlax Romany]
>
>  * L?guru: lij.wikipedia.org   [Ligurian]
>
>  * ?emaitė?ka: bat-smg.wikipedia.org   [Samogitian]
>
>  * Basa Banyumasan: map-bms.wikipedia.org   [Banyumasan]
>
>  * Ripoarisch: grp.wikipedia.org   [Ripuarian]
>
>  * Pennsylfaanisch-Deitsch: pdc.wikipedia.org    [Pennsylvania German]
>
>  Further details can be found at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages
>
>  Thank you very much for your time and attention, also on behalf of our new fellow Wikipedians!
>
>  Arbeo
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Telefonieren Sie ohne weitere Kosten mit Ihren Freunden von PC zu PC!
> Jetzt Yahoo! Messenger installieren!
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Caching old revisions

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:
> How about
> 3) Add a parser hack for *only* replacing templates with their contents
> (recursively). Then store *that* wikitext.
>
> Takes more space than a template links table, but would be *way* faster
> (template replacement is only done once, on declaring a stable version).

Yes, that could be possible.

> Or the solution I took for my "StableVersion.php" extension:
> 4) Don't care about templates - if it turns out to be a mess, declare
> the whole template namespace "protected" :-)

I think I ruled that out in my original post.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] More DRV shenanigans

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

David Gerard stated for the record:

> I added a note about how not to get an ulcer from the broken DRV:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review&diff=31123430&oldid=31112389
> Splash added a mild threat:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&diff=next&oldid=31123430
> DS1953 removed it:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&diff=next&oldid=31124162
> Splash replaced it by rollback:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&diff=next&oldid=31125009
> Titoxd removed both as "flammable materials":
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&diff=next&oldid=31126365
>
> DRV regulars appear convinced it is a fiefdom unto itself, with only a
> passing consideration at best of writing an encyclopedia rather than
> fetishisation of process. If there's more than me with the notice on
> their user pages about undeletion for viewing, it would be worth
> listing a bunch at a time per my original notice.

Done.  Wanna see if we can tag-team someone into 3RR violation?  ;->

- --
 Sean Barrett     | How much does it cost to have
 sean at epoptic.org | the Internet installed?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDntxSMAt1wyd9d+URAoYbAJ9N9hIaQg3pvGj28qVgw+25e8JyrQCfe5UK
R2c+0tLL/CBQIstkW8O0zr4=
=oWAb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

subject: [Wikitech-l] Stupid Mediawiki Tricks: logical templates

body:
I made a quick mockup of what I consider would be a nice advanced
template syntax the other day, I guess this is as good a place to
throw it into the ring as any.

Proposed syntax: http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~avar/syntax

Some key points that have to be considered:

* People don't want or need a wiki programming language, the execution
time of this should be kept to a minimum and the language should focus
on what people generally need to do, which is to have conditional
templates, a proper template language done well should outperform the
current template hacks.
* I put some operators there which I thought might be useful:
	defined length
	< > <= >= == eq ne lt gt le ge
	and or xor not
  I'm still not sure about the usefulness of the length() function though.


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] SPOV threatens NPOV

body:
stevertigo wrote:
> -- David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:

>>So what term do you suggest for the thing that is
>>currently usefully described by the word
>>"pseudoscience"?

> I dunno- "quasiscientific," maybe. Because 'pseudo'
> carries a prejudicial connotation of 'falseness,'
> while 'quasi' carries a perhaps more accurate
> connotation of "almost" or "partly" being something;
> in this case, as something being based in science.

Original research. Is there a current word that means the same thing?

> The term "pseudoscientific," to be fair, seems like a
> natural one to use in cases where non-scientific
> claims are asserted as if there was established
> scientific proof. Its probably more accurate to just
> call certain specific outlandish claims as plain
> scientific 'fraud,' though my guess would be that that
> would probably be considered POV. 'Pseudoscience' is
> not much different than calling something 'fraud,'
> though 'fraud' seems to imply deliberate deception
> rather than an honest claim, written in religionese,
> and borne of intellectual confusion (SPOV) or
> 'ecstatic inspiration' (RPOV).

It sounds like you don't like that some of the things so described are
associated with others of the things so described.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] More Seigenthaler fallout

body:
Matt Brown wrote:

> My belief is that in general we should not remove things from page
> history so easily.

Seconded. This is an invitation to every POV pusher who doesn't like
criticism.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] More Seigenthaler fallout

body:
Thanks David.  Please let me know what they say.

I'd like to reiterate that the information I am assuming he's unhappy with wasn't backed up by sourcing, it was just a crazy rant about his relationship with UT and his book being biased.

K.

----- Original Message ----
From: David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>; Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 6:35:39 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] More Seigenthaler fallout

I wrote on wikien-l:
>Matt Brown wrote:
>>Katefan0 wrote:

>>>Mr. Sigenthaler's recent experience has encouraged me to send you
this note. As you know, I have been the subject of some discussion in
one of the pages you administer. Some of those comments I consider
libelous. I strongly suggest that you, as the party responsible for
this article and discussion, and/or Wiki executives take immediate
action to purge such false and irresponsible statements, and block
such from occurring in the future.
>>>Please forward this to Wiki executives.
>>>I look forward to your speedy response.

>> My belief is that in general we should not remove things from page
>> history so easily.

>Seconded. This is an invitation to every POV pusher who doesn't like
>criticism.

I should emphasise here I don't mean John Siegenthaler - or, without
knowledge of the case, the person who wrote to Katefan0. I've dealt
with a number of cases of perfectly normal and decent people who
understand and respect our mission as an NPOV encyclopedia, but are
unhappy at being slandered by conspiracy-obsessed nutters who just
won't quit and aren't quite sure what to do about it. Usually we work
it out okay with a close watch on the article and (possibly) suitable
penalties for the antisocial editor. A recent example is [[User:AI]]
on [[David S. Touretzky]] (which AI started as a slander page and has
now been NPOVed quite well) and [[Keith Henson]] (which AI didn't
start but got heavily to work on).

However, we have *plenty* of the other sort. Examples include
[[Sollog]], [[Daniel Brandt]], [[Ashida Kim]], [[John Byrne]] (yep,
the famous comics artist), [[Barbara Schwarz]] ... I am *greatly*
reluctant to let people bowdlerise their article because they don't
like notable and well-documented facts.

Our concern is much more with getting things right than it is to
inexpertly second-guess the law. It's also far more within our
expertise! And once a case *comes to the community's attention*, the
article tends to get watchlisted by skilled and experienced editors
who will have familiarised themselves with the subject.

This may require removing particularly bad revisions in extreme cases
after due consideration, though that's a lot of tedious work that's
easily undone with one new edit re-adding the crap. But IMO, we can't
get into a habit of removing negative information on first request
just like that.

[cc: to arbcom list for consideration]

- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

body:
On 12/13/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/13/05, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/11/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > > One thing we should probably introduce in this area though is that
> > > articles which do not provide any references should be speedy
> > > deletions.  Now there are probably a whole lot of good articles out
> > > there right now which would fit that, so for now let's make the CSD
> > > criterion only for articles caught in the first 48 hours.
> >
> > Now this, while a rather draconian policy, is at least not inimical to
> > the nature of Wikipedia, as AfD is. Of course, I'd rather that people
> > be expected to make a good-faith effort to find a reference before
> > deleting.
>
> I think this is something that we need collaboration for.  A page upon
> which articles that don't contain any references at all can be placed.
> If references are added they can be removed from the page.  If they
> stay there for a month or so, they may be deleted.  No  limits on
> article age would be needed.

My only hesitation here is that I don't think there are very many
valid articles in Wikipedia for which finding a reference is not very
easy.  For those few articles in that category, I don't see the harm
in *requiring* that they be referenced *before* they are added (by the
author, or they could even be put on the new "Articles for Creation").

If articles are given a month to get references, I believe that is
only going to make the page grow bigger and more unmanageable.  This
is especially true because the number of new articles in a day is only
going to go up, not down.  If we can't reference them faster than we
add them, the process will fail regardless of whether there is a month
or a day to complete it.  In fact, it will probably only fail harder
because there will be more people wasting time trying to reference
those articles which can't be referenced.

At least a month is better than forever, but I think a month is too
long to be manageable.

How about this: we list pages there for a month, but after 24 hours
the article gets moved to the user's subpage.  And let's add this: an
article doesn't get moved, even after 24 hours,  unless a member of
the "article referencing team" (or whatever) says that s/he has spent
a few minutes looking for a source and failed.  If no one bothers to
make a good faith search effort, the article stays in article space
for up to a month.

Anthony


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] More Seigenthaler fallout

body:
On 12/13/05, Katefan0 <katefan0 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'd like to reiterate that the information I am assuming he's unhappy with wasn't backed up
> by sourcing, it was just a crazy rant about his relationship with UT and his book being
> biased.

We can't stop crazy rants and we can't go around deleting each one
from article histories - removing them from the current version should
be enough in almost all cases.

In many cases we should consider removing them from the article's talk
page (but not its history).

-matt


list: foundation-l

from_name: Kyle Lutze

subject: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's fantasy...

body:
Delirium wrote:
> Kyle Lutze wrote:
>
>> On a more general note, it would be really cool to get more paid
>> people onboard, such as Tim Starling, and some editors that'll
>> complete stubs. maybe even some sort of bounty system for the articles
>> that could use being done but nobody wants to do?
>
>
> Paid developers, sure.  Someone needs to make sure that the money is
> being allocated where it's needed (buying hardware versus developing
> software, and if the latter, what software and who), but there isn't any
> sort of huge problem with it.
>
> Paying editors is another matter.  In principle I would support it, but
> we have to be *very* careful that it doesn't cause all sorts of
> collateral problems, from people gaming any sort of bounty system to get
> paid for crap work, to distortions in the community that might cause
> greater harm than the paid writers help.  It's not impossible to do
> right, but I think it may be hard enough to not be worth it.
>
> -Mark
>

For the developers, I know there isn't a huge problem with it, but I was
just thinking, something to show that we really appreciate all of their
hard work :)

For the editors, yeah, I know. I thought about that before hand too.
I'll leave it alone since that subject is basically beating a dead horse.

But, what about the other idea?!

Kyle


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's fantasy...


subject: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's fantasy...

body:
The Cunctator wrote:
> On 12/12/05, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
>
[snip]ough to not be worth it.
>
>
> I've got an idea: when you come up with an idea that would
> fundamentally change the nature of Wikipedia, why don't you just get a
> group of people together to start a fork?
>
> I honestly do wonder how long it will be before the first Great Pedia
> Fork takes place. I've found the standard germ time for idea cycles to
> overturn is about 7 years, which means that we've got another three
> years to go...
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

NO FORK!


subject: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's fantasy...


subject: [WikiEN-l] More Seigenthaler fallout

body:
Well, this gets to my other point.  I haven't checked my watchlist this morning, but I'm assuming that the person who made this crazy rant -- who was blocked until late last night for 3RR and other bad behaviors -- is going to come back full speed if he hasn't already.  I have no reason to believe he won't continue to make the same crazy rants.  It's one thing to remove somebody's offensive talk page comment that's 5 months old, but what if they're still banging on about it?  Do we then get into the practice of actively censoring someone's speech?  Are we to be expected to come behind this person and simply erase that portion of his comments every time they get made?

K.

----- Original Message ----
From: Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com>
To: Katefan0 <katefan0 at yahoo.com>; English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 11:11:37 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] More Seigenthaler fallout

On 12/13/05, Katefan0 <katefan0 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'd like to reiterate that the information I am assuming he's unhappy with wasn't backed up
> by sourcing, it was just a crazy rant about his relationship with UT and his book being
> biased.

We can't stop crazy rants and we can't go around deleting each one
from article histories - removing them from the current version should
be enough in almost all cases.

In many cases we should consider removing them from the article's talk
page (but not its history).

-matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Turn off AfD

body:
On 12/13/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/13/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/13/05, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > G'day Toni,
> > >
> > > > On 12/13/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>On 12/13/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>On 12/13/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > > >>>>In all fairness Googling, then adding the information is a lot of work.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>It's a couple of minutes.  And at the end of it you have a useful
> > > >>>article instead of a hole in the ground.
> > > >>
> > > >>Nocking out people on RC patrol for couple of minutes soon results in
> > > >>the loss of RC patrol as they are all of researching stuff.
> > > >
> > > > Goodness, editors of an encyclopedia performing research!  We can't
> > > > have that!  Anybody would think we wanted to be as good as Britannica
> > > > or something!
> > >
> > > You know exactly what geni meant.  This sort of cheap shot helps nobody.
> > >
> >
> > I'm sorry that you see it as a cheap shot; it's rather the reverse.  I
> > regard the argument that research prior to deletion would detract from
> > recent changes patrolling as utterly indefensible.  I find it
> > difficult to believe that anyone would seriously attempt to defend it.
>
> Why? We've seen the cost of a failed RC patrol. If you want to put an
> article on wikipedia doing a minium of research yourself is not too
> much to ask.

I have to agree with geni here.  The problem is that the research time
required by the two parties is so utterly asymetrical.  Even if you're
writing an article from the top of your head, it's obviously something
you know a lot about, and you'd have a much easier time finding a
reference than some random edit patroller.  If nothing else it's
common courtesy to save the rest of us time researching your article.

C'mon, it's not like I'm asking for every single fact to be
referenced.  Adding a single reference to every single article is just
not a big deal.

And yes, I myself have started articles without listing references.  I
did it because I'm lazy and there wasn't a rule against it.  We've
gotta stop lazy people like me.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] SPOV threatens NPOV

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Your statement that "the other ideas are normally all wrong" is a POV.
> If your criticism depends on a POV then it too is a POV.  A scientific
> experiment that shows something to be wrong is not the same as one that
> fails to show it right.  To say that something which is not science is
> necessarily pseudoscience is a textbook application of the fallacy of
> [[False dilemma]].

I never made such an assertion (that all non-science is pseudoscience).
I said that pseudoscience is often wrong. So could you give me an
example of a pseudoscience which is actually 'right'?

> Assuming that you are within the bounds of NPOV calls for a leap of
> faith.  You might as well ask us to believe in intelligent design with
> you as the designer.

That's a bit hyperbolic, isn't it?

Chris


subject: [WikiEN-l] More Seigenthaler fallout

body:
On 12/13/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Matt Brown wrote:
> > My belief is that in general we should not remove things from page
> > history so easily.
>
> My belief is that in general we should be aggressive about removing
> vandalism from the page history.  If there was an automated way to go
> through on a regular basis and remove reverted versions from the
> history, I would strongly support that we do so.

The problem is that what people normally request removed in this
fashion does not fall under the category of simple vandalism.

I am not against the idea of removing simple vandalism completely from
the history in principle, although I am worried about its potential
for abuse.

Right now, we do not have the automated tools to make doing this
practicable except in specific cases.

-Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Turn off AfD

body:
On 12/13/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/13/05, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> > G'day geni,
> > >
> > > Why? We've seen the cost of a failed RC patrol. If you want to put an
> > > article on wikipedia doing a minium of research yourself is not too
> > > much to ask.
> >
> > Remember that we are talking about coming across articles that don't
> > cite their sources.  If you came across such an article on RC patrol,
> > you would *not* immediately reach for AfD, and you should not be listing
> > stuff on AfD without doing research (if nothing else, because then you
> > couldn't write a good nom, and I've been hot on the issue of AfD
> > nominations for a while now).
>
> I'm not even talking about listing without research--that's sloppy but
> cannot result in an out-of-process deletion.  I'm talking about RC
> patrollers deleting articles that contain, for instance, statements
> that imply notability, such as the recent deletion of an article that
> described its subject as a "prominent barrister and civil
> libertarian."
>
Instead of arguing about this, because I can see both sides of the
argument, I'll present a somewhat simple feature that would remove
much of the problem.

Let's add a feature to the software to automatically notify a user
(easiest implementation would be to add a message on the talk page)
when an article she started has been deleted.  Then if the deletion
was mistaken, it's trivial for the user to either rewrite it or get it
undeleted (or it damn well should be, an inappropriate speedy is still
a candidate for speedy undeletion, right?).

In fact, preferably we could add it whenever an article gets tagged
for AFD, or with cleanup-verify, etc.

Anthony


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Caching old revisions

references:
<dnjf1f$tql$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<439D82CB.6090905@web.de>	<dnkia1$osb$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<439DEACA.2040301@web.de>

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:
> Tim Starling wrote:
>
>>Magnus Manske wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Or the solution I took for my "StableVersion.php" extension:
>>>4) Don't care about templates - if it turns out to be a mess, declare
>>>the whole template namespace "protected" :-)
>>>
>>
>>I think I ruled that out in my original post.
>>
>
> Sorry, what I *meant* to say was this:
>
> Do we need a "stable" version to stay _exactly_ the same? Or would it
> suffice if the _contents_, the information stays the same? Would readers
> care if the odd templates changes somehow, as long as it does not
> contain malicious contents (misinformation etc.)?
>
> So I said "protect the templates" to prevent anything Evil (TM) from
> creeping in that way, and ignore them otherwise.
> It would be very clean on the tech side, but leave a bad stench on the
> editorial side, I guess...
>
>
> Just trying to clarify that point, not arguing it.

I still think I ruled that out in my original post. I suggested to Brion a
much weaker form of cache inconsistency, and he didn't like the idea. So I'm
trying to design a system where the cache is perfectly invisible to the user.

-- Tim Starling


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Turn off AfD

body:
On 12/13/05, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 08:19 -0500, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> > C'mon, it's not like I'm asking for every single fact to be
> > referenced.  Adding a single reference to every single article is just
> > not a big deal.
> >
> > And yes, I myself have started articles without listing references.  I
> > did it because I'm lazy and there wasn't a rule against it.  We've
> > gotta stop lazy people like me.
>
> Its a worthwhile aim. I know there are articles I have created that
> still dont have references, guess I should fix them. Not sure that
> moving them into user space is the best solution - no one else will
> ever find them. I wrote a quick stub the other day (was redlinked
> from several places, clearly notable, but couldnt find any references.
> Within an hour someone else had found references, written a much
> longer article. This wouldnt have happened in my user space.
>
> Justinc

Well, the latest version of the proposal didn't move to user space
until 24 hours later, so this would still have gotten fixed.  I'm sure
there are other examples though, especially in the current system.  I
just think they'd be minor enough that they'd be far outweighed by the
increased efficiency in dealing with crap.

Right now we waste a lot of time dealing with crap.  Running an
article created by some "anonymous redshirt" through a 5 day voting
process when the creator of that article did absolutely nothing to
help us out is feeding the trolls.

If people want to spend the time going through crap and turning it
into gold, let them see the articles *after* they've been deleted.  It
should be an optional process though.  Personally I'd have fun doing
it.  Others wouldn't.

I think it'd be the Great Wikipedia Compromise.  Give the
inclusionists who apply for the job the power to see deleted articles.
 Be more lenient about keeping well written and well referenced
articles on obscure topics.  And be less tolerant about keeping around
crap.  Both sides would win.  Everyone would laugh and be merry.
Alright, that last sentence was overboard.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] More DRV shenanigans

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

Tony Sidaway stated for the record:

> On 12/13/05, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
>
>>David Gerard stated for the record:
>>
>>>DRV regulars appear convinced it is a fiefdom unto itself, with only a
>>>passing consideration at best of writing an encyclopedia rather than
>>>fetishisation of process. If there's more than me with the notice on
>>>their user pages about undeletion for viewing, it would be worth
>>>listing a bunch at a time per my original notice.
>>
>>Done.  Wanna see if we can tag-team someone into 3RR violation?  ;->
>>
>
> Not a good idea.

Agreed.  Was joke.

> I have made a template that administrators can add to their user
> pages, containing David's notice and adding the administrator to an
> appropriate category.
>
> {{user recovery}}
>
> (Perhaps not the best name, but follows an informal naming convention
> used on similar user-based templates).

While I heartily agree with this project, I don't like the template.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | How much does it cost to have
 sean at epoptic.org | the Internet installed?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDnvwoMAt1wyd9d+URAnBHAKCGLk9E1xdRQvWBGxaWoTfBUk0i2gCcDv1g
g4DqLFT9B88gnjY9P8cWkYk=
=Br/A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: SPOV threatens NPOV

body:
On 12/13/05, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>
> The Cunctator wrote:
>
> > I really don't know where you're going here. Tone aside, I was making
> > the very serious point that the evidence that the scientific method
> > works, people's opinions aside, should be pretty obvious to anyone
> > enjoying the fruits of technological progress.
>
> You're violently agreeing with each other, from my reading.

Well, no. I think that arguing against the concept or wording of
"pseudoscience" is wrong.

I really think that search power of Google and the healing power of
the rays of Venus are different things.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Turn off AfD

body:
On 12/13/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> I think it'd be the Great Wikipedia Compromise.  Give the
> inclusionists who apply for the job the power to see deleted articles.
>  Be more lenient about keeping well written and well referenced
> articles on obscure topics.  And be less tolerant about keeping around
> crap.  Both sides would win.  Everyone would laugh and be merry.
> Alright, that last sentence was overboard.

I'd be merry. Especially if we just gave more people the power to see
deleted articles.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Turn off AfD

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Kat Walsh wrote:
>> On 12/12/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

>>> ??? I'm not too sure what you are addressing.  If I were voting for this
>>> sort of thing in Wikipedia I would likely take a stronger stand than you
>>> about the need for fewer bureaucrats AND admins.  As long as I'm not a
>>> candidate for anything, I don't need to worry about the outcome of any
>>> such vote.

>> Fewer admins? Really? Why? I happen to think we could use more. Grunt
>> work is boring and people get tired of it.

> It is indeed.  Maybe we need more efficient ways to handle the grunt work.

Most of it can be semi-automated. e.g. CDVF is a fantastic tool. It's
not even the greatest software (CryptoDerk would be the first to admit
this, and if not then Kelly Martin can get quite direct about the code
;-), but the fact of it being there has helped RC patrollers
immeasurably. So we need more admins who are also coders, because boy
will they have an itch to scratch!

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] More Seigenthaler fallout

body:
>>Stuff like that, you cut it, say "see talk" in the edit summary and
say "source please" ;-)

Yeah, for sure.  I removed it immediately, but Lavergne's complaint came after it had been excised from the live article for at least a day.  Which means he must either take issue with the fact that the prior edit, which was removed, is either in the edit history of the article, or still present on the talk page.  (I removed the information from the talk page, but it remains in the history.)

K.


from_name: Andrea Forte

subject: [WikiEN-l] Simple interface tweak?

body:
Has it ever been suggested before that a simple indicator of "how many
people are watching this article" could be a useful tool for:

users who want to figure out what to trust
wikipedians who want to know where to spend their efforts
discouraging vandalism

Has this been tried? Suggested? Debated?

Just curious,

Andrea


from_name: Stan Shebs

body:
Justin Cormack wrote:

>On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 21:41 +0800, John Lee wrote:
>
>
>>I believe the {{unreferenced}} template already exists. I've seen it
>>quite a few times, but not often enough, IMO. I'm a fanatic on citing
>>sources, but some of the old ones I started that I don't really have
>>much interest in (like [[chicken nugget]] and [[double-decker bus]])
>>don't have references yet (AFAIK).
>>
>
>Well lets start putting it in more.
>
>Yes, things with little interest are an issue.
>
>I think I will have to make full list of articles I am interested
>in being good that I have contributed to, and prune my watchlist of
>the stuff that I just made small fixes to and dont really care
>about in order to make this improvement thing work.
>
>I might however have a few erudite references for chicken nugget
>in my large pile of history of food books.
>
I wonder how many people hold off adding references because they're
hoping for a better source. For instance, I used to not mention
using Oxford Classical Dictionary, because it's technically a
tertiary source, but many of its articles mention only primary
sources, leaving no secondaries to cite. Nowadays I just cite it
anyway - if somebody has something better later, they can replace
the OCD cite.

Stan


body:
On 12/13/05, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
> I wonder how many people hold off adding references because they're
> hoping for a better source. For instance, I used to not mention
> using Oxford Classical Dictionary, because it's technically a
> tertiary source, but many of its articles mention only primary
> sources, leaving no secondaries to cite. Nowadays I just cite it
> anyway - if somebody has something better later, they can replace
> the OCD cite.

Exactly the result I feared when people started to press not only for
sources, but only sources that fit certain criteria.  I argued then
that even a poor source is better than none, because it traces where
the information came from and allows people familiar with the subject
to dig deeper.

I also believe we should cite primary, secondary or tertiary sources,
whichever is available.  In the case of primary sources, of course,
these should only be readily available ones.  Ideally, an encyclopedia
is a tertiary source - a summing-up of knowledgable opinion - but I
would not exclude primary or tertiary sources unless better are
available.

-Matt


body:
On 12/13/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> My latest proposal suggested that articles were merely moved to the
> user namespace, 24 hours after creation, and only after the user was
> notified and a good faith effort to locate a source had failed.

The problem with that is that it removes articles that need work from
the eyes of the editors and readers who might be able to fix the
problem.  Better to mark it as unreliable than make it invisible.

-Matt


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia Class Action

body:
On 12/13/05, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> "Anthony DiPierro" <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote
> in message
> news:71cd4dd90512121025r42088e35m38bd4a9e3b045629 at mail.gmail.com...
> > > http://www.wikipediaclassaction.org/
> > It'll be interesting to see if someone tries to force them to remove
> > the trademarked Wikipedia logo from that site.
>
> According to the footer on that page:
> "Wikipedia image, in its distorted format (c) Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is
> used pursuant the fair use doctrine"
>
> IANAL but that sounds pretty demented to me :-)
> --
> Phil
> [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]

Well, yeah, in my opinion it's a pretty obvious case of fair use as
far as the copyright goes.  Doesn't Wikipedia have a tag for "logo of
a company on a page about the company".  The case for dilution is
trickier, but still probably fair use (if it's even dilution in the
first place).  I think it'd be a horrible mistake to sue them over it,
but hey, it'd be an interesting thing to watch.

Anthony


body:
On 12/13/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 12/13/05, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Anthony DiPierro" <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote
> > in message
> > news:71cd4dd90512121025r42088e35m38bd4a9e3b045629 at mail.gmail.com...
> > > > http://www.wikipediaclassaction.org/
> > > It'll be interesting to see if someone tries to force them to remove
> > > the trademarked Wikipedia logo from that site.
> >
> > According to the footer on that page:
> > "Wikipedia image, in its distorted format (c) Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is
> > used pursuant the fair use doctrine"
> >
> > IANAL but that sounds pretty demented to me :-)
> > --
> > Phil
> > [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]
>
> Well, yeah, in my opinion it's a pretty obvious case of fair use as
> far as the copyright goes.  Doesn't Wikipedia have a tag for "logo of
> a company on a page about the company".  The case for dilution is
> trickier, but still probably fair use (if it's even dilution in the
> first place).  I think it'd be a horrible mistake to sue them over it,
> but hey, it'd be an interesting thing to watch.
>
> Anthony
>
Looking further, apparently the legal doctrine is "trademark
disparagement".  I don't know much about trademark law, so I'm going
to withdraw my statement about whether or not this use is fair use wrt
trademark/dilution law.

Anthony


from_name: Ryan Ernst

body:
Peter Gervai wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 13:01:36 -0000
> "Phil Boswell" <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> IANAL but if it would have been drawn by an European person (or anyone
> worked on it from out here) it would be possible to force them to
> remove it since as far as I remember international law does provide the right
> to the author to request the removal of his work not otherwise released
> freely. (If it was not published under a free license; so it was acquired
> illegally anyway, IMHO.)

I'll take this moment to point out hte google ads on the side of the
page. Perhaps an argument could be made that doing so is 'commercial'
use of the logo, or at least in bad faith.

To me, it just seems a publicity stunt.

--
Ryan Ernst
4th Year BCSci, Dalhousie University
http://shadowlife.warflame.ca

"Instead of spending all this money litigating against kids who are
  the people they're trying to sell things to in the first place, they
  have to learn how to effectively use the Internet." - David Draiman
(Disturbed)


from_name: JAY JG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Improve AFD - require rationales (2-step process)

body:
>From: Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com>
>
>But I see a lot more discussion about how bad AFD is and a lot less
>discussion about what we should replace it with, and why whatever system we
>choose to replace it will be any better. Defense of AFD seems to be getting
>quieter and quieter but I still don't see us making much progress toward
>enacting some actual improvements.

Defense of AfD is getting quieter for a number of reasons:

*defense of AfD, even if only to point out that it almost always makes
reasonable decisions, and even when making unreasonable decisions, is no
more error prone than any other human system, only seems to encourage
further outbursts of dubious and unproven claims about its "brokenness",
and, in some cases, near-hysterical rhetoric regarding it and those who
defend it.
*defense of AfD only serves to continue discussion on a topic which is
fairly unimportant when measured against Wikipedia's real problems (e.g.
failing dispute resolution mechanisms, assaults on Wikipedia [abetted by the
media] by increasingly vocal and threatening individuals regarding content
about them that they don't like).
*defense of AfD, and the reaction to that, tends to make the atmosphere of
this list far more "poisonous" than the "poisonous atmosphere" of AfD
itself.

Jay.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Turn off AfD

body:
On 12/13/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/13/05, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'd be merry. Especially if we just gave more people the power to see
> > deleted articles.
>
> There'd have to be two classes of deletion; some articles must not be
> served except for administrative purposes, because of legal liability
> problems.

Certainly not if the power to see deleted articles was only given to
those who agreed to use it only for administrative purposes.

Anthony


from_name: Mark Wagner

subject: [WikiEN-l] Simple interface tweak?

body:
On 12/13/05, Carbonite <carbonite.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/13/05, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
> >
> > Andrea Forte wrote:
> >
> > >Has it ever been suggested before that a simple indicator of "how many
> > >people are watching this article" could be a useful tool for:
> > >
> > >users who want to figure out what to trust
> > >wikipedians who want to know where to spend their efforts
> > >discouraging vandalism
> > >
> > >Has this been tried? Suggested? Debated?
> > >
> > >Just curious,
> > >
> > >Andrea
> > >
> > >
> > It's not exactly new, but I've never figured out why it hasn't been
> > explored further.
>
>
> One of the drawbacks is that vandals would be able to target articles that
> have zero users watching them.

That's not true.  An article with zero watchers still shows up on
Recent Changes, where anyone doing RC patrol can see what's happening.

--
Mark Wagner


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] More Seigenthaler fallout

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>The only sensible counter-argument I know of in this area is a concern
>for future historians or contemporary researchers who would like to
>study the phenomenon of vandalism.  For this, it seems more than enough
>to make such revisions available in some limited-access way.  There's
>just no reason to keep this junk cluttering up the publicly-viewable
>article history.
>
>
But it's not all junk. The Seigenthaler vandalism wasn't noticed for
four months because it wasn't a popular page, what if instead of the
addition of a falsehood it had been the deletion of truths? That deleted
material would have eventually vanished from history under a system like
this and the vandalism would become uncorrectable.

It seems to me this sort of functionality would move the debates we've
been having over deletion of articles down to the level of the deletion
of individual sentences.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Turn off AfD

body:
On 12/13/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/13/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > Even if you're
> > writing an article from the top of your head, it's obviously something
> > you know a lot about, and you'd have a much easier time finding a
> > reference than some random edit patroller.  If nothing else it's
> > common courtesy to save the rest of us time researching your article.
>
>
> Absolutely.  Starting an unreferenced article is discourteous
>
> However, that is not an argument for deletion of unreferenced articles.

I think it is a good part of the argument.  It's the part that says
you don't have a *right* to have your articles kept if they are
unreferenced.

The other half of the argument is which would be better for Wikipedia.
 Would deletion of unreferenced articles cause enough people to start
referencing things that it'd make up for those articles which were
deleted?  Would the time saved in not having to argue with trolls make
up for the time spent asking an admin to undelete something?  We can
argue over these points forever, or we could try it and see.  I think
there's a good chance that the positives would outweigh the negatives.
 No solution is perfect, of course.

Anthony


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Turn off AfD

body:
On 12/13/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> >
> In all fairness Googling, then adding the information is a lot of work.

It's a couple of minutes.  And at the end of it you have a useful
article instead of a hole in the ground.

>
> Complaints about deleting unsourced material resulted in a separate page
> called Requests for Verification (RfV) where supporters have a full
> month to find sources.

This sounds like exactly what I'm suggesting for Wikipedia.


from_name: Joseph Reagle

subject:
[WikiEN-l] No wonder people don't realise that anyone can edit
	Wikipedia

body:
On Monday 12 December 2005 11:50, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> I think that's implied in what I said.  We're building an
> encyclopedia.  We haven't produced one yet, at least not in English.
> German Wikipedia arguably *has* produced an encyclopedia.

Just curious, on what basis do you make this distinction?


from_name: Ryan Delaney

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

Tony Sidaway wrote:

> This is a misrepresentation. My standard for consensus, at the time I
>
>was closing AfDs, was 70-80% depending on the strength of arguments.
>This is in line with standards used elsewhere on Wikipedia, and in no
>way can it be described as "inflated".
>
>That some other editors use 2/3 as in any way representative of
>consensus, I find unfortunate, but I can live with it.

It bothers me that you and David are ignoring my main point, so I'll
try repeating it: I'm not using this email to make a judgment about
what percentage you arbitrarily picked as a standard for what
"consensus" means.  The mere fact that administrators can decide for
themselves is what bothers me, and if I am criticizing you, I am
criticizing everyone (including myself, since I've closed a lot of
AFDs).  What troubles me is that the result of AFD votes -- the
controversial ones that actually matter, anyway -- can be
substantially influenced by the administrator who closes them.

Say some contentious issue comes up on an AFD, say a series of
"roadcruft" nominations.  Now, the votes will be very close, but say
we have 64% of people voting to delete.  Some administrators, without
doing the math, would close this as a delete.  You certainly
wouldn't.  What does that say about the discussion process?  Doesn't
that mean the opinion of the closing admin on deletion standards
weighs in more than anyone elses?  This is what I'm getting at-- I
think your case isn't an example of an admin abusing his power, but it
is an example of what can go wrong with AFD *as a system*, and it
actually goes wrong every day without anyone noticing.

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

iD8DBQFDnuzk6MKb8lYmCtcRApEGAKCTG+ytyzRWs98zXFTqS4SrKagawgCfc0Z3
RwAa96sQgDqXhIxZFcUL3Wk=
=BxLx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Carbonite

subject: [WikiEN-l] Simple interface tweak?

body:
On 12/13/05, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
>
> Andrea Forte wrote:
>
> >Has it ever been suggested before that a simple indicator of "how many
> >people are watching this article" could be a useful tool for:
> >
> >users who want to figure out what to trust
> >wikipedians who want to know where to spend their efforts
> >discouraging vandalism
> >
> >Has this been tried? Suggested? Debated?
> >
> >Just curious,
> >
> >Andrea
> >
> >
> It's not exactly new, but I've never figured out why it hasn't been
> explored further.

One of the drawbacks is that vandals would be able to target articles that
have zero users watching them. It's been suggested that instead of exact
counts, ranges would be used for lesser watched articles ("Less than 10
users watching"). Perhaps admins could have access to exact counts so that
they could identify if an article wasn't being watched. Overall, it's a very
good idea that just needs to have the details nailed down.

Carbonite


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Proposal: Article Improvement Weeks! (was Turn off
	article creation AND deletion.)

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

Anthony DiPierro wrote:

> Already 1000 listed there. I wonder, are there any articles that
>
>*don't* qualify? [[Westboro Baptist Church]] has the tag, and it has
>33 references!
>
>BTW, the "Buckinghamshire location article" and "article related to
>broadcasting in Singapore" quotes were real examples from cleanup
>tags. So yeah, it was sarcasm, but it was serious sarcasm.
>
>Anthony

If 1000 are listed there, then that will give you an idea of the
magnitude of the problem.  If you find the tag somewhere it doesn't
belong, remove it. I'm not even sure what we are discussing here.

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

iD8DBQFDnu0q6MKb8lYmCtcRAkYdAJ9/1HCLaKlxQWLfe0IdWwfugix7XACfQ5Yg
sy7muNtgZpacdBTaFpoWTfk=
=BJgO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] More DRV shenanigans

body:
We've got an undeletion policy that clearly allows for history-only
undeletions.  They don't need to be listed on DRV and they don't need
to be kept for ten days if they are.

Accordingly I've undeleted the history of [[Thomasine Church]],
earlier deleted by AfD and recreated as a redirect (and a very good
one) to an article about the Nasranis, who sometimes use that term to
describe themselves.

Unfortunately I have had to do this in the face of almost unanimous
opposition along the following lines:

"That article was complete, unverified piffle on someone's homebrew
website church. Even hidden in the history it would be detrimental to
the reputation of Wikipedia"

"I agree with most of the above. this should be kept safely out of harm's way"

But original the material is not as toxic as the above statements seem
to say, being simply an account of a US-based church that claims
spiritual links to Thomas.   As far as it goes, it's verifiable, but
slanted somewhat towards the views of that church.

As this is a straightforward matter under the undeletion policy, I've
gone ahead and undeleted.

As I've outlined before, DRV is even more prone to assumptions of bad
faith than AfD.  In a great example of instruction creep, it now
purports to declare some material (not copyright infringing, not
defamatory) unfit even for a history undeletion.


body:
On 12/13/05, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
> > Already 1000 listed there. I wonder, are there any articles that
> >
> >*don't* qualify? [[Westboro Baptist Church]] has the tag, and it has
> >33 references!
> >
> >BTW, the "Buckinghamshire location article" and "article related to
> >broadcasting in Singapore" quotes were real examples from cleanup
> >tags. So yeah, it was sarcasm, but it was serious sarcasm.
> >
> >Anthony
>
> If 1000 are listed there, then that will give you an idea of the
> magnitude of the problem.  If you find the tag somewhere it doesn't
> belong, remove it. I'm not even sure what we are discussing here.
>
> Ryan

I'm aware of the magnitude of the problem.  That's why I'm presenting
a proposal of how to start fixing it.  Yes, there are lots of articles
without any source already in Wikipedia.  Let's stop adding new ones.

As for whether or not the tag belongs, I don't know if it belongs,
because the way the tag is phrased it is fairly meaningless.  "This
article contains information that has not been verified and thus might
not be reliable."  I'm sure [[Westboro Baptist Church]] does contain
some such information.  In fact, I bet at least 95% of the articles in
the encyclopedia do, if not more.  However, the tag doesn't say which
information is not verified, so I can't even tell whether or not the
tag is correct, let alone know how to resolve the problem.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] Undeletion service

body:
On 12/12/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
> ==Undeletion==
>
> If you need access to a Wikipedia article that has been deleted, ask me.
[etc]

Wonderful.  Now has pride of place on my user page.


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] More Seigenthaler fallout

body:
Matt Brown wrote:
> My belief is that in general we should not remove things from page
> history so easily.

My belief is that in general we should be aggressive about removing
vandalism from the page history.  If there was an automated way to go
through on a regular basis and remove reverted versions from the
history, I would strongly support that we do so.

The only sensible counter-argument I know of in this area is a concern
for future historians or contemporary researchers who would like to
study the phenomenon of vandalism.  For this, it seems more than enough
to make such revisions available in some limited-access way.  There's
just no reason to keep this junk cluttering up the publicly-viewable
article history.

--Jimbo


body:
On 12/13/05, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/11/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > One thing we should probably introduce in this area though is that
> > articles which do not provide any references should be speedy
> > deletions.  Now there are probably a whole lot of good articles out
> > there right now which would fit that, so for now let's make the CSD
> > criterion only for articles caught in the first 48 hours.
>
> Now this, while a rather draconian policy, is at least not inimical to
> the nature of Wikipedia, as AfD is. Of course, I'd rather that people
> be expected to make a good-faith effort to find a reference before
> deleting.

I think this is something that we need collaboration for.  A page upon
which articles that don't contain any references at all can be placed.
If references are added they can be removed from the page.  If they
stay there for a month or so, they may be deleted.  No  limits on
article age would be needed.


subject: [WikiEN-l] More DRV shenanigans

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

>As I've outlined before, DRV is even more prone to assumptions of bad
>faith than AfD.  In a great example of instruction creep, it now
>purports to declare some material (not copyright infringing, not
>defamatory) unfit even for a history undeletion.

That's not instruction creep! That's [[scope creep]].

I added a note about how not to get an ulcer from the broken DRV:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review&diff=31123430&oldid=31112389
Splash added a mild threat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&diff=next&oldid=31123430
DS1953 removed it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&diff=next&oldid=31124162
Splash replaced it by rollback:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&diff=next&oldid=31125009
Titoxd removed both as "flammable materials":
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&diff=next&oldid=31126365

DRV regulars appear convinced it is a fiefdom unto itself, with only a
passing consideration at best of writing an encyclopedia rather than
fetishisation of process. If there's more than me with the notice on
their user pages about undeletion for viewing, it would be worth
listing a bunch at a time per my original notice.

- d.

- d.


from_name: Any File

subject: [Wikitech-l] WikiMusic

body:
I have found this interesting web site about free music
http://www.mutopiaproject.org/

AnyFile


body:
On 12/12/05, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/12/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Tony Sidaway got RFCed for not doing a strict numerical count. I said
> > the RFC was completely fuckheaded (which it was), and then Ed deleted
> > VFD. So there's some historical precedent for your view ;-)
> >
> >
> The RFC *was* fuckheaded, but there might have been a point somewhere in the
> nonsense.  That admins can execute as much discretionary power when it comes
> to what "consensus" means in an AFD is worrisome; it implies that the
> closing admin can alter the result of the vote substantially according to
> whatever arbitrary view he or she might have on deletion.  Tony doesn't
> think this is a problem, because (I get the impression-- please correct me
> if I'm wrong here) that he's happy that he can close AFDs with an inflated
> standard for consensus, because he wants more articles to be kept.

This is a misrepresentation.  My standard for consensus, at the time I
was closing AfDs, was 70-80% depending on the strength of arguments.
This is in line with standards used elsewhere on Wikipedia, and in no
way can it be described as "inflated".

That some other editors use 2/3 as in any way representative of
consensus, I find unfortunate, but I can live with it.


body:
>From: Leif Knutsen <vyerllc at gmail.com>
>
>I'm not even going to bother to go into why a recent 3RR block of me was
>unjust and unwarranted, and probably abusive. What interests me more is
>what
>appears to be the immunity enjoyed by admins. I reported one of you for
>vandalism three times in the last few days, documented the three specific
>instances and countless others, and nobody (except the perp) even
>responded,
>let alone acted on the complaint.
>
>I'm just curious: how many cases have there been of an admin being subject
>to disciplinary action, either in the form of blocks, long-term blocks,
>being deprived of admin rights, or outright expulsion? What I see - even
>from admins I have learned to respect - is that admins generally stand up
>for each other first and last, whether they harbor reservations after the
>fact.

Leif, while I don't know the particulars of your blocking, I feel I should
note that two entries down from yours on WP:AN/3RR is entry in which an
admin has been blocked for 3RR violation.  Also, admins have had their admin
abilities removed temporarily and permanently by the Arbitration Committee.

Jay.


subject: [WikiEN-l] More Seigenthaler fallout

body:
On 12/13/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Matt Brown wrote:
> > My belief is that in general we should not remove things from page
> > history so easily.
>
> My belief is that in general we should be aggressive about removing
> vandalism from the page history.  If there was an automated way to go
> through on a regular basis and remove reverted versions from the
> history, I would strongly support that we do so.
>
> The only sensible counter-argument I know of in this area is a concern
> for future historians or contemporary researchers who would like to
> study the phenomenon of vandalism.  For this, it seems more than enough
> to make such revisions available in some limited-access way.  There's
> just no reason to keep this junk cluttering up the publicly-viewable
> article history.
>
> --Jimbo

I agree with the sentiment, but I haven't heard a proposal which would
make it practical.  By practical I mean, among other things, that it
wouldn't be abused and that it would be easy to dispel accusations of
abuse.  I believe that if this were made easy it would inevitably lead
to admins deleting some cases of criticism of Wikipedia, for instance.
 Limiting the use to high profile cases, when an agent of the
foundation steps in, is much safer.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] More Seigenthaler fallout

body:
I wrote on wikien-l:
>Matt Brown wrote:
>>Katefan0 wrote:

>>>Mr. Sigenthaler's recent experience has encouraged me to send you
this note. As you know, I have been the subject of some discussion in
one of the pages you administer. Some of those comments I consider
libelous. I strongly suggest that you, as the party responsible for
this article and discussion, and/or Wiki executives take immediate
action to purge such false and irresponsible statements, and block
such from occurring in the future.
>>>Please forward this to Wiki executives.
>>>I look forward to your speedy response.

>> My belief is that in general we should not remove things from page
>> history so easily.

>Seconded. This is an invitation to every POV pusher who doesn't like
>criticism.

I should emphasise here I don't mean John Siegenthaler - or, without
knowledge of the case, the person who wrote to Katefan0. I've dealt
with a number of cases of perfectly normal and decent people who
understand and respect our mission as an NPOV encyclopedia, but are
unhappy at being slandered by conspiracy-obsessed nutters who just
won't quit and aren't quite sure what to do about it. Usually we work
it out okay with a close watch on the article and (possibly) suitable
penalties for the antisocial editor. A recent example is [[User:AI]]
on [[David S. Touretzky]] (which AI started as a slander page and has
now been NPOVed quite well) and [[Keith Henson]] (which AI didn't
start but got heavily to work on).

However, we have *plenty* of the other sort. Examples include
[[Sollog]], [[Daniel Brandt]], [[Ashida Kim]], [[John Byrne]] (yep,
the famous comics artist), [[Barbara Schwarz]] ... I am *greatly*
reluctant to let people bowdlerise their article because they don't
like notable and well-documented facts.

Our concern is much more with getting things right than it is to
inexpertly second-guess the law. It's also far more within our
expertise! And once a case *comes to the community's attention*, the
article tends to get watchlisted by skilled and experienced editors
who will have familiarised themselves with the subject.

This may require removing particularly bad revisions in extreme cases
after due consideration, though that's a lot of tedious work that's
easily undone with one new edit re-adding the crap. But IMO, we can't
get into a habit of removing negative information on first request
just like that.

[cc: to arbcom list for consideration]

- d.


from_name: geni

body:
On 12/13/05, stevertigo <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yes, one could at least hope that such ample practice
> would make for more perfection. I can only hope to
> someday become as practiced with using the block
> button as you are.

> One could say its the job of the officer to do their
> homework. Check a link or two, etc. I know its a lot
> of trouble. Besides I dont use email, and why would I
> when theres wiki?  Wiki is a great idea, and a
> preferable means for open communication. (Though it
> only works when people are reasonable enough to not
> block you from it. But that's a problem with 3RR
> blocking in the first place, and not with your
> quasi-proper application of the rules.)

I cheacked quite a few links quite a lot of times. Why do you think
3RRs are so time comsumeing. Remeber when you unblocked yourself you
did not try and comunicate. I also did not reblock you (I learned from
the previous case that that was a waste of time).

> Why not just be direct and state that there was 24
> hours difference between the blocks? That way you let
> people decide for themselves if that material
> difference was had some substantial effect on your
> claim of equitablity. "Brought to light" is a clever
> convolution, young man, but its not encyclopedic. Nice
> try though.
>
> Stevertigo

Of course any halfway competant edit warrior would point out it is an
advantage to have your oponent blocked as late as posible.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Simple interface tweak?

body:
True, it would afford more effective vandalizing of unwatched pages.
Then again, it would alert readers to be more cautious there too.

Andrea

On 12/13/05, Carbonite <carbonite.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/13/05, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
> >
> > Andrea Forte wrote:
> >
> > >Has it ever been suggested before that a simple indicator of "how many
> > >people are watching this article" could be a useful tool for:
> > >
> > >users who want to figure out what to trust
> > >wikipedians who want to know where to spend their efforts
> > >discouraging vandalism
> > >
> > >Has this been tried? Suggested? Debated?
> > >
> > >Just curious,
> > >
> > >Andrea
> > >
> > >
> > It's not exactly new, but I've never figured out why it hasn't been
> > explored further.
>
>
> One of the drawbacks is that vandals would be able to target articles that
> have zero users watching them. It's been suggested that instead of exact
> counts, ranges would be used for lesser watched articles ("Less than 10
> users watching"). Perhaps admins could have access to exact counts so that
> they could identify if an article wasn't being watched. Overall, it's a very
> good idea that just needs to have the details nailed down.
>
> Carbonite
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Undeletion service

body:
On 12/13/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/12/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > ==Undeletion==
> >
> > If you need access to a Wikipedia article that has been deleted, ask me.
> [etc]
>
> Wonderful.  Now has pride of place on my user page.
>

As I've noticed that I wasn't the only administrator to do so, I've
created a template with an appropriate category, which any
administrator can use.

{{User recovery}}


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Turn off AfD

body:
On 12/13/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/13/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > >
> > In all fairness Googling, then adding the information is a lot of work.
>
> It's a couple of minutes.  And at the end of it you have a useful
> article instead of a hole in the ground.
>

Nocking out people on RC patrol for couple of minutes soon results in
the loss of RC patrol as they are all of researching stuff.

--
geni


body:
On 12/13/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/13/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> > At least a month is better than forever, but I think a month is too
> > long to be manageable.
>
> I believe it's about the same amount of time we give suspected
> copyright infringements.
>
Suspected copyright infringements is a completely different situation,
though, because it invariably *requires* discussion.  That something
is not a copyright infringement cannot be easily proven, if at all.
That something has a citation in it can be easily proven.

> > How about this: we list pages there for a month, but after 24 hours
> > the article gets moved to the user's subpage.  And let's add this: an
> > article doesn't get moved, even after 24 hours,  unless a member of
> > the "article referencing team" (or whatever) says that s/he has spent
> > a few minutes looking for a source and failed.  If no one bothers to
> > make a good faith search effort, the article stays in article space
> > for up to a month.
> >
>
> No need to userfy.  Just add an "unreferenced" tag.  This has the
> advantage of permitting casual visitors to find and improve the
> article.

I find the unreferenced tag to be useless.  Either it says that the
article contains some unreferenced facts, in which case we'd be better
off tagging those few articles which don't contain unreferenced facts
with the opposite tag, or it says that the article contains zero
references, which is already evident to anyone scanning the article
anyway.

If you want to put the tag on the talk page or use a category, in the
case of articles with absolutely no references, I wouldn't object.
But I don't think that is a solution for what I'm saying, which is
that we shouldn't be creating such articles in the first place.

Anthony


body:
On 12/13/05, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 21:41 +0800, John Lee wrote:
>
> > I believe the {{unreferenced}} template already exists. I've seen it
> > quite a few times, but not often enough, IMO. I'm a fanatic on citing
> > sources, but some of the old ones I started that I don't really have
> > much interest in (like [[chicken nugget]] and [[double-decker bus]])
> > don't have references yet (AFAIK).
>
> Well lets start putting it in more.
>
> Yes, things with little interest are an issue.
>
> I think I will have to make full list of articles I am interested
> in being good that I have contributed to, and prune my watchlist of
> the stuff that I just made small fixes to and dont really care
> about in order to make this improvement thing work.
>
> I might however have a few erudite references for chicken nugget
> in my large pile of history of food books.
>
> Justinc

A quick Google Print search reveals that Poultry Products Processing
by Shabtai Barbut has a description of the process of chicken nugget
production, complete with schematic overview, starting on page 291.
In all there are 73 results mentioning "chicken nugget".

Anthony


from_name: Arbeo M

body:
There have been quite a few requests for Wikipedias in new languages in the recent months.

 All of them have been examined carefully and they were broadly discussed by the community.

 Seven of them have qualified. They are considered promising and useful projects and a very clear majority of users is convinced that they will be a beneficial extension of the Wikipedia family.

  However, before those babies can grow and prosper we need a specialist to assist their births.

  In other words: I'd like to ask you to create the wikis specified below please.

  * Nedersaksisch: nds-nl.wikipedia.org   [Netherlands Low Saxon]

 * Romani: rmy.wikipedia.org   [Vlax Romany]

 * L?guru: lij.wikipedia.org   [Ligurian]

 * ?emaitė?ka: bat-smg.wikipedia.org   [Samogitian]

 * Basa Banyumasan: map-bms.wikipedia.org   [Banyumasan]

 * Ripoarisch: grp.wikipedia.org   [Ripuarian]

 * Pennsylfaanisch-Deitsch: pdc.wikipedia.org    [Pennsylvania German]

 Further details can be found at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages

 Thank you very much for your time and attention, also on behalf of our new fellow Wikipedians!

 Arbeo

---------------------------------
Telefonieren Sie ohne weitere Kosten mit Ihren Freunden von PC zu PC!
Jetzt Yahoo! Messenger installieren!


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Turn off AfD

body:
On 12/13/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The other half of the argument is which would be better for Wikipedia.
>
> I think we can take it as read that it isn't better for Wikipedia to
> delete articles without good reason.

I agree.


from_name: Blackcap

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: SPOV threatens NPOV

body:
On 12/13/05, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/13/05, Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:
> > Do you have any verification that the 'Resurrection' of Christ actually
> > occurred, other than Christian literature?
>
> Christian literature.  That makes it not bunk.
>
> We should present all views, not only the ones that seem most rational
> to us.  To call the Resurrection "bunk" is completely POV and
> unacceptable.  It doesn't conform to our knowledge of science, but
> that should not say that Wikipedia should present an opinion on
> whether or not it happened.
>
> SPOV should be in NPOV, but it isn't NPOV in itself.
>

I agree. I personally don't have any faith that the Resurrection occurred
(or even in Jesus' existence), but to say that it's total bunk is certainly
as POV as saying that the Resurrection absolutely happened.

--
[[User:Blackcap]]


from_name: Phil Boswell

body:
"?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason" <avarab at gmail.com>
wrote in message
news:51dd1af80512122254p24be0d0aq1f3f4595c365b13b at mail.gmail.com...
> I made a quick mockup of what I consider would be a nice advanced
> template syntax the other day, I guess this is as good a place to
> throw it into the ring as any.
> Proposed syntax: http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~avar/syntax

Sorry: given the current circumstances, nesting is not negotiable :-)

What would be the ideal first step would be if someone could simply
implement the functionality of the {{if}} or {{qif}} template in wikicode.
This would simply test whether a supplied argument is blank or non-blank and
thereby choose one of two options to transclude.

We already have the {{fullurl:pagename|actionstring}} and
{{localurl:pagename|actionstring}} operators. It's not a huge leap to
{{if:test|thenstring|elsestring}} is it?
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Allow searching of wikitext as well as articles

body:
One feature I've wanted for a while is the ability to search the wikitext of
pages. This comes up most frequently when I'm using
[[Special:Whatlinkshere]], and when I get to the page, I can't find the link
(as it's piped). If a scan of the page doesn't do the trick, then I have to
copy the wikitext into a text editor and search the exposed markup there.
It'd be great to be able to do this using the search tool. How feasible is
this?

--
[[User:Blackcap]]


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

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

By the way, if anyone here hasn't seen it yet, I've still got a
sandboxed policy proposal to reform the arbitration policy (as per the
discussion in this old thread) up at [[User:Ryan_Delaney/sandbox]].
Comments welcome, either here or on the talk page of my sandbox. :-)

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

iD8DBQFDnv9q6MKb8lYmCtcRAhtCAJ9z7mq+q7cHQpM4BHmbicGlnwQqPwCfeSDD
Prc8lNTwIGYlJBb5PGUWj9U=
=is2e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: SPOV threatens NPOV

body:
> We should present all views, not only the ones that seem most rational

> > to us.  To call the Resurrection "bunk" is completely POV and
> > unacceptable.  It doesn't conform to our knowledge of science, but
> > that should not say that Wikipedia should present an opinion on
> > whether or not it happened.
> >
> > SPOV should be in NPOV, but it isn't NPOV in itself.
>
> Well, obviously Christian literature would say that Christ was
> resurrected. I accepted that, and I asked for other verification.
>
> Consider this scenario:
>
> The world was considered flat in ancient times. That conformed to
> contemporary rational thinking (basically, the world is flat since we
> can't see it curve). It was also wrong. Is Wikipedia presenting a point
> of view by stating this theory is wrong?
>
> Chris
>

No, because the earth has been conclusively proven wrong, and there isn't
any significant opposition to the theory that the world is flat (and so
there is no conflict). The Resurrection, on the other hand, is, hasn't been
conclusively proven wrong (due to lack of evidence), and is still believed
by a vast amount of people.

--
[[User:Blackcap]]


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Christmas presents, or: MediaWiki,
	reloaded

body:
Rowan Collins wrote:

>On 12/12/05, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:
>
>
>>Right now, each task type in the sidebar has its own id. A new style can
>>be chosen by editing MediaWiki:Monobook.css and setting a style for,
>>say, "task_sidebar_delete". A read background would surely be noticed.
>>
>>
>
>Hm, maybe. But it still misses the chance to explain to newer users
>what's going on (linking to deletion policy etc as well as the
>particular discussion).
>
>
>
>>Personally, I think that would suffice. Anyway, putting up a bigger
>>notice, for example, in the page subtitle wouldn't be a problem.
>>
>>
>
>I was thinking perhaps there could be a "tasks-banner-<foo>" message
>for each task (e.g. "MediaWiki:tasks-banner-delete") which was shown
>at the top of the page. Priority could be based on the order of
>"MediaWiki:tasks task types", to only show one such banner. The
>default [if the relevant message didn't exist] could be just a small
>"There are [x] tasks pending for this page", and that could be given
>as a $x variable to the banners so that it could be added inside, say,
>the big red box of a 'delete' banner.
>
>
Have another look (force-reload to update CSS, and create a "delete"
task if necessary).
Box and text all configurable through CSS.

>
>
>>Transclusion IMHO would clutter the search page. It would look pretty
>>much like AfD looks now :-(
>>
>>
>
>Well, some people actually *like* it that way, so I think providing
>the *option* will be important in getting this feature accepted (that
>was certainly the case in some of the discussions I've seen regarding
>alternative VfD styles, some time ago). The great thing about having
>proper software support is that we can have all sorts of *different*
>views, without anyone having to maintain them.
>
>
Maybe I'l add this later; to be honest, I don't consider this a priority...

>The main problem with *not* transcluding, BTW, is that the "status" is
>not fine-grained enough to reflect, say, the progress of an AfD debate
>"at a glance". Perhaps the "initial comment" could be replaced with an
>editable "summary", with the initial comment becoming the initial
>content of that and the Task: discussion page? Interface for that is
>awkward, I know; how about ripping it out of a special
><tasksummary>...</tasksummary> section when the Task: page is saved,
>meaning it'd even have history?
>
>
The reason I didn't just put the comment on the "Task:" page is that I
don't want to create one if unnecessary. Many tasks can live without
one, and automatic creation will just blow up the database (and needs
additional database writes on task creation).

>
>
>>The task discussion pages *are* linked from the status tables. (maybe
>>you saw an older version with a bug? Try the current one!)
>>
>>
>
>Sorry, this wasn't clear; I meant that "Special:Tasks" (or rather,
>sub-pages like Special:Tasks/Delete) should probably be linked from
>the status tables, so that people can navigate to other tasks of the
>same type.
>
>
I'll look into this.

>[Task page naming:]
>
>
<snip>
I've changed the schema to "Task:123" (the task ID)

>
>>Part of the problem is that the feature is visually colliding with the
>>"stable version" one.
>>I just deactivated the stable version feature, since Tim is already
>>working on a better one :-)
>>Is this better? Maybe I should just change the font size?
>>
>>
>
>Yes, that does improve it somewhat. Still, I would prefer larger font
>and black rather than grey, but then I think the same of the
>"(Redirected from...)" text that goes in the same place - this is
>fairly important information that should be prominent enough that
>people will notice it even when not looking for it.
>
>
Done (configurable through CSS).

>
>
>>It's in the "extensions" module, directory "Tasks", file "Tasks.php".
>>Make sure to read the initial comment in that file for how to set it up
>>correctly.
>>
>>
>
>I noticed the CVS commit notifications just after I'd sent my message,
>and was considering making time to play with it later tonight. [I
>probably won't get round to it, though]
>
>
Brion already put it through a thorough cleaning yesterday :-)

Magnus


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Turn off AfD

body:
On 12/11/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/11/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Why should 2 people be able to overthrow a bunch of others in case
> > > where there's nothing wrong with their judgement?
> >
> > One person can do it.
>
> Not if they want to stay an admin.

Is that a threat? Read the undeletion policy.  Administrators are
empowered to undelete out-of-process deletions unilaterally.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Turn off AfD

body:
On 12/13/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/13/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/13/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > In all fairness Googling, then adding the information is a lot of work.
> >
> > It's a couple of minutes.  And at the end of it you have a useful
> > article instead of a hole in the ground.
> >
>
> Nocking out people on RC patrol for couple of minutes soon results in
> the loss of RC patrol as they are all of researching stuff.

Goodness, editors of an encyclopedia performing research!  We can't
have that!  Anybody would think we wanted to be as good as Britannica
or something!