subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:3RR

body:
So you think that in science pages, for example, space
should be given to different theories based on their
relative popularity? This will wreak havock on
evolution, not to mention gravity!
Are you really serious?
Mark

--- Shane King <wikipedia at dontletsstart.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 07:24:42AM -0800, Mark
> Richards wrote:
> > Surely you are joking? We guage the truth by the
> > number of people who believe it?
> > Mark
>
> Wikipedia doesn't (or shouldn't) gauge the truth AT
> ALL. Isn't that what
> the neutral point of view policy is all about? We're
> supposed to say
> "here's what various people think, make up your own
> mind".
>
> To that end I would say, in general, the more people
> on your side in an
> edit war the more likely you are to be "right", in
> the sense of the
> edits you want are in the spirit of wikipedia.
> Obviously this is not
> a hard and fast rule, but as a guideline I'd say it
> applies. If we are
> to assume good faith, how can we think otherwise?
>
> Shane.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Jens Ropers

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Fwd: Banned from editing except on en

body:
On 16 Nov 2004, at 06:17, Mark Williamson wrote:

> Does this not tell you something about your incompetence when it comes
> to individual incidents?

If I was Angela, I'd ask you to apologize.

Does it ever occur to you that you can't bully people into welcoming
your company?

-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]]
     www.ropersonline.com


list: wikien-l

from_name: Gerrit

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: The return of Prillinger.

body:
csherlock at ljh.com.au wrote:
> What, you don't question other sources of information? The Britannica
> isn't exactly the most NPOV source itself you know...

I don't say I don't question other sources, it's just that I question
Wikipedia more often than more authorative sources like Brittanica.

Gerrit.

--
Weather in Twenthe, Netherlands 16/11 17:55:
	10.0?C light drizzle; mist mostly cloudy wind 4.5 m/s WSW (57 m above NAP)
--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will persist.
    -Dwight David Eisenhower, January 17, 1961


body:
On 16 Nov 2004, at 18:12, Stan Shebs wrote:

> public restrooms
> are popular and heavily used - people want more of them, not fewer.
>
> Stan

Yes.
 From http://www.worldtoilet.org/ :
"'Gracious Living for a Model City' is the theme of the 1st World
Toilet Expo & Public Toilet Forum 2005, to be held in Shanghai, China
from 11-13 May 2005. (...)"
(Also cf. http://www.worldtoiletexpo.com/ .)

;-)

-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]]
     www.ropersonline.com


from_name: Dmitry Borodaenko

subject: [IMC-Tech] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikinews demo launches!

body:
[ Don't Cc: me unless you take this discussion off imc-tech ]

On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 04:26:42PM -0800, Stan Shebs wrote:
> > That's what I do best. I'm a librarian, media activist and
> > anarchist. My role is to ask questions and be a curmudgeon.
> >
> > I've written criticism about Wikipedia on my blog, both positive and
> > negative. As a librarian, I think that it is an awesome project,
> > which really should be better appreciated by people who are stuck in
> > past paradigms about "information accuracy." As an anarchist,
> > Wikipedia troubles me. While the open source nature of the project
> > is very anarchistic, I'm really pissed that right wing assholes are
> > allowed to post falsehoods to the entry on "anarchism." This problem
> > forced me to discontinue my participation in the project.
> "*Allowed* to post"? Maybe you're not quite as much of an anarchist as
> you thought. :-)

Or maybe he's more of an anarchist than you think there might be :-)

The way I see it, anarchism is not about allowing anyone to do anything
to you. It is more about opposing the power, which also can be expressed
as not allowing anyone to excercise power over anyone else.

If it was really the case that Wikipedia moderators allowed to present
right-wing opinion about anarchism as a neutral fact and dismissed
Chuck0's objections, that would be a clear example of excercise of
power, i.e. something anarchists oppose.

As for the original question, I share Chuck0's concerns about Wikipedia:
I also noticed that its NPOV tends to favor mildly right-wing opinion.
However, I see this problem as something that can be and should be dealt
with: if anarchists and Indymedia activists can get an equal voice over
moderation issues (through sufficient transparency and accountability),
that would be a great improvement over commercial media who misrepresent
or in best case quietly ignore our efforts. It is not a problem that our
position is labeled as "opinionated" -- as long as the opposite position
is also labeled as such.

--
Dmitry Borodaenko


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Evan Prodromou

subject: [Wikitech-l] 404 handler caching

body:
I've implemented a system for MediaWiki. 404 handler caching works by
keeping copies of articles in a directory on the server in HTML format;
if a page is missing from the directory, an error document (AKA 404
handler) is called by the server. If the 404 handler is MediaWiki, it
can render the page to the client and cache that version to the
directory, so that next time the Apache server will just serve the file
directly. There's more on the technique here:

    http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/404_handler_caching

Anyways, I did an implementation as a MediaWiki extension; the code is
at http://wikitravel.org/~evan/Cache404.php.txt . There's no
documentation to speak of; this is just an alpha version.

I've got a test wiki working with it on Wikitravel:
http://wikitravel.org/test/ .

If you're at all interested, well, now you know.

~ESP

--
Evan Prodromou <evan at wikitravel.org>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20041116/aa30ec70/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject:
[WikiEN-l] About the reliability of the Wikipedia process  and
	content

body:
At 04:55 PM 11/16/2004 -0800, Christopher Mahan wrote:
> > Versioning will help that.
>
>Am not so sure.
>
>Imagine I am Anonip the Egyptian, and I go to the article "Jerusalem"
>and get dropped into Revision 20040807:45. I read it, it's a lovely
>article, and I get all warm and fuzzy inside.
>
>Then I decide to add something to it... Alas, we are now on version
>20041116:398, the bastardized spawn of Hades, mangled to death by
>edit warriors, pov pushers, and a veritable army of sock puppets
>(would that be a drawerful?). I recoil in horror and decide to not
>edit, since, well, it's frankly quite depressing.

Would you prefer that Anonip never see Reversion 20040807:45 at all? With
the current system, version 20041116:398 would be the first version he'd
see and the only way he'd be able to see 20040807:45 would be to manually
dig through the article's history with no indication that any such "nice"
version even exists to find, let alone where it might be.

>So the average man, in constant fear of the marauding trolls and
>hordes of vandals, steers clear of the bleeding sword-edge version
>and stays within the clearly marked path of the Official and Right
>Version of Safety.
>
>Yet, down this path the common man no longer contributes to the W.
>Only the hardcore groups of ultra-perfectionists and extremists will
>remain to edit, polarize, and ultimately destroy the W.
>
>Do I have a solution? No.

I do, I suggested it last time this discussion came up.

Have the default version that all people see when they first go to an
article be the _current_ version. If there's a "reviewer-approved" version
in the article's history, have a "view most recent verified version" link
in the sidebar that takes you straight there. Unless one actively goes out
of one's way to view "approved" versions in this scenario, Wikipedia will
continue to function exactly the same as before.


body:
At 04:44 PM 11/16/2004 -0800, Mark Richards wrote:

>Well, if it's strictly for version 1, then fine, but I
>really don't see why a group of 'experts' would make
>for a more reliable article, it seems that it would
>simply add the standard predjudices that these groups
>bring.
>
>The current process of everyone being able to review
>seems to be better. For sure, eternal vigilence is
>needed.

Everyone would be able to review the choices the "experts" make, too. If
you think the review process makes mistakes, point them out so they can
either be corrected or defended. If you can demonstrate that the "experts"
are in fact reducing the reliability of articles or introducing verifiable
prejudices, then I expect there'd be a movement to fix whatever's causing
the problem - perhaps even abolishing the whole review system as a bad
idea, if it comes to that. At which point nothing at all will have been
lost since Wikipedia will have continued chugging along regardless.


from_name: csherlock at ljh.com.au

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Socks; 3RR policy change

body:
[snip]

> --Jimbo
>
> p.s.  I always try to add that I don't think that every use of a
> second account is sockpuppetry of course.  There are a number of good
> reasons one might do it.  My favorite (and completely made up) example
> would be a math professor who writes about math topics *and* is
> secretly a fan of Britney Spears.  Maybe he would like to write about
> those two things under separate identifies. :-)

Or the fact that you could get one to see what people really think of
you :P

TBSDY


body:
What, you don't question other sources of information? The Britannica
isn't exactly the most NPOV source itself you know...

TBSDY

Gerrit wrote:
> Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
>
>>There's nothing "faith based" about it -- it's good old fashioned
>>*rational* hard work, undertaken by people of good will in a spirit of
>>love and kindness.
>
>
> There is some truth in the rest of the article, though.
> The example on Alexander Hamilton is indeed striking.
> I use Wikipedia for information a lot. But in the back of my head, I
> always keep thinking: "it is a wiki, it may not be true, it may not be
> NPOV, it may be very incomplete, even if it doesn'n say so". If I would
> need information and it would be important that I was sure about it, I
> probably wouldn't trust Wikipedia as a single source. I probably would
> look first into Wikipedia, and then check the facts with sources like
> Encyclop?dia Brittanica or the Dutch Winkler Prins. In the end, the
> authority of Wikipedia will always remain below that of estabished,
> commercial encyclopedia's. It does not mean Wikipedia isn't very very
> great, but it is a unpreventable consequence of the whole Wiki concept.
>
> We will soon have 'validation'. I don't know the details, but it would
> be good if a knowledgeable user's validation would weigh more than a
> non-knowledgeable user's validation. Somewhat like /.'s karma: if my
> edits/articles get good ratings, my karma goes 'up', and the validations
> I do on other articles weigh more. Or: if I write a lot of articles in
> [[Category:Physics]], validations I do for other articles in this
> category weigh more than I do for [[Category:Music]], and vica versa.
>
> There is a problem with the Alexander Hamilton story. The problem cannot
> be solved 100% in a wiki. We can lessen the problem with validation and
> other techniques, though.
>
> I will always love Wikipedia.
>
> yours truly,
> Gerrit Holl.
>
> P.S. It is very cool to see that his complaints are dated by now. Was
> the Encyclop?dia Brittanica editor responsible for the edit? I guess
> not...
>


list: foundation-l

from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy

body:
As a reminder, please participate or comment the future privacy policy :
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy

I think it would be nice that we adopt this policy beginning of 2005 for
all wikimedia projects.

We could plan to link it to our preferences page as well.
Since the preference page would be modified, we could modify it as well
to welcome information about joining the foundation or local association
as members, or agreeing to our gfdl policy.

That could make an over 32k page if we are fully informative ;-)

------

In particular, I think the paragraph about retrieval of user information
(comparison of ips, user password and email address)  requires more
input than there is now, to clarify who is allowed to do this; upon
whose request; and whether user should be information of such a check.

Anthere


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy


from_name: Jean-Baptiste Soufron

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] the Wikipedia Project : the only true encyclopedia of
	our day

body:
Hello,

I guess all of you read the article of Robert McHenry, former editor in
chief of the Britannica "so-called" Encyclopedia...

I wrote a piece of paper about it as it helped me realize that Wikipedia
is not pretending to be an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is pretending to
accuracy but... whatever, Wikipedia is the only real encyclopedia of our
days because it is the only knowledge base project to pursue a political
goal in our days !

The political importance of the Wikipedia Project : the only true
encyclopedia of our days.
Wikipedia : towards a new electronic enlightenment era ?

http://soufron.free.fr/soufron-spip/article.php3?id_article=71

I am now really convinced of it.

Commentaries, critics and anything are welcomed :)


from_name: Mark Richards

subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:3RR

body:
--- Shane King <wikipedia at dontletsstart.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 06:02:51PM -0800, Mark
> Richards wrote:
> > So you think that in science pages, for example,
> space
> > should be given to different theories based on
> their
> > relative popularity? This will wreak havock on
> > evolution, not to mention gravity!
> > Are you really serious?
> > Mark
>
> I'm not discussing what I think should be done, I'm
> discussing what I
> believe current policy to specify. I believe
> creationism has no place at
> all in an article on science. That's neither here
> nor there though.
>
> Shane.

But if we take seriously the idea that if many people
believe it it should be given space, you must do that,
surely.
Mark

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Extreme article deletion]] is up for deletion

body:
I'm sorry - are you wanting people to vote to keep, or
delete?
Mark

--- "csherlock at ljh.com.au" <csherlock at ljh.com.au>
wrote:

> I highly recommend everyone assist me with my
> efforts to win this
> competition - delete to keep!
>
> [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Extreme article
> deletion]]
>
> Ta bu shi da yu
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com


from_name: Andy Rabagliati

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: no:/nb:/nn:/etc. - modified suggestion

body:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Angela wrote:

> If no: were moved to nb:, I think it would be best for
> http://nb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noreg to redirect to
> http://nb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norge
> since it's an nb URL, so people will expect Bokm?l.

[ a lot of other excellent suggestions snipped ]

I speak neither language.

However, I notice the initial If.

Amongst some truly great discussion, we should remember pt:, and ask
again if all the nn: and nb: folks could swallow their differences
and skim through the other dialect as if it were their own. We have been
told that they all understand both.

Balkanisation has irretrievable consequences. We are in the information
business, and the information comes first.

Cheers,   Andy!


from_name: Charles Matthews

subject:
[WikiEN-l] About the reliability of the Wikipedia process
	andcontent

body:
Fred Bauder wrote

> The problem is that it is not reasonable to trust academics as any
> thoughtful and observant person who attended an institution of higher
> learning knows. Most academics have some axe to grind.

Correct as far as it goes.  But more to the point is that until WP editing
looks good on a CV, no academic worth having will give it the attention.

Charles


from_name: Craig Franklin

body:
Scr?obh Chuck0,

>I've been told that Wikipedia is run
>by right wing libertarians,

I've been told that Indymedia is run by a giant evil robot called "Hank".
His joints are oiled by the blood of capitalist babies.

Besides, I reject that implication.  I'm a left-leaning libertarian ;-)

>so hwo do we know that the volunteer work
>put into a joint project won't be exploited by venture capitalists when
>they try to turn Wikipedia into an IPO?

This sort of thing is why I feel it will be difficult to come to a
compromise.  I admire IndyMedia for at least having the initiative to do
something that they think is obviously important, but this sort of almost
fanatical anti-business anti-capitalism rhetoric that is common over there
does not sit well with the principle of NPOV at all.  IndyMedia are a
political advocacy site (they proudly say as much), and Wikimedia is
theoretically (at least) an unbiased, neutral source of information.

... unless I'm totally missing the fact that Chuck is having a little joke,
in which case I do apologise ;-)

Seriously though, I think we'd all love to have the IndyMedians aboard, but
our two different cultures are like oil and water, and I'm not sure that too
many of the ranters over there will be interested in putting aside their
political viewpoints to be of much use on Wikinews.

Now, go ahead and prove me wrong :-)

Regards,
- Craig Franklin

-------------------
Craig Franklin
PO Box 764
Ashgrove, Q, 4060
Australia
http://www.halo-17.net - Australia's Favourite Source of Indie Music, Art,
and Culture.

----- Original Message -----
From: <wikipedia-l-request at Wikimedia.org>
To: <wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 10:18 AM
Subject: [personal] Wikipedia-l Digest, Vol 16, Issue 31

> Send Wikipedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikipedia-l-request at Wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikipedia-l-owner at Wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikipedia-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Fwd: Banned from editing except on en (Henry H. Tan-Tenn)
>    2. Re: no:/nb:/nn:/etc. - modified suggestion (Bjarte Sorensen)
>    3. Re: Wikinews demo launches! (Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales)
>    4. Re: Re: Fwd: Banned from editing except on en
>       (Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales)
>    5. Re: Wikinews demo launches! (Erik Moeller)
>    6. Re: Fwd: Banned from editing except on en (Henry H. Tan-Tenn)
>    7. Baseldytsch Wikipedia: Who can put it online? (cdamvvwgs at gmx.ch)
>    8. Re: [IMC-Tech] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikinews demo launches! (Chuck0)
>    9. Re: [IMC-Tech] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikinews demo launches! (jeff)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:24:28 -0500
> From: "Henry H. Tan-Tenn" <share2002nov at lomaji.com>
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Fwd: Banned from editing except on en
> To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <cnb6qe$knb$1 at sea.gmane.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
>  > You are banned from editing at any wikipedia site other than en.
>
> Personally (and with all due respect to Jimbo), I'd prefer that
> judgement be left to individual Wikipedias to decide, per their usual
> policy of banning users.
>
> Specifically, I personally wouldn't mind if Mark edit on zh-min-nan.
> Evidence suggests that he is not a fluent speaker or writer of Southern
> Min by any measure, but at the same time he has also shown some
> willingness to learn.  That willingness may well just be curiosity or
> dabbling, but those tendencies are not themselves evil.  Regardless of
> his ultimate attainment in proficiency (if any), a degree of "language
> exploration" might even be encouraged.  In practice this could mean
> devoting more community resources to correcting the learner's sentences,
> but so long as the errors are made in good faith and not meant to
> disrupt, they will be corrected in the usual wiki way.
>
> Of course, if Mark were to engage in spamming (on zh-min-nan) or other
> actions based on bad faith, he'd become a candidate for censure,
> including the possibility of banning.  Until and unless that occurs on
> zh-min-nan, I'd personally not mind participation from him (or anyone).
>
>
>
>
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales <jwales at wikia.com>
> > Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 07:26:10 -0800
> > Subject: Banned from editing except on en
> > To: Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>
> > Cc: Angela <beesley at gmail.com>,
anthere9-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org
> >
> >
> > As a courtesy to you, Mark, I'm not going to make a big public
> > spectacle of this, but if you would like to take it public, please do
> > so.  I just see no reason at this juncture to put you through the
> > embarassment of a public ban.
> >
> > You are banned from editing at any wikipedia site other than en.  I
> > will make an adjustment to this if you can convince me that you are
> > fluent in any other language.  It is simply unacceptable for you to
> > continue making edits to minor language wikis in the way that you
> > have.
> >
> > We could enforce this ban at a technical level if we had to, but you
> > know how our system works enough to see that it would be quite a lot
> > of work for us.  I don't think I've seen enough evidence of bad faith
> > on your part to think that you'd do that.
> >
> > --Jimbo
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 08:27:19 +1100
> From: Bjarte Sorensen <bjarte at pingpingping.com>
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: no:/nb:/nn:/etc. - modified suggestion
> To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <1100554039.41991f3724a01 at www.pingpingping.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> I agree fully with Olve Utne's solution. I don't think it matters that
no:-links
> redirect to nb:-links. They are for the most part pointing to articles
that
> would stay on nb: anyway, and after a while most no:-interwiki links will
be
> changed to reflect the move to nb:. When it comes to static links on say
Google
> or other search engines these will sooner or later be replaced by
appropriate
> ones from nn: and nb: and the no: links will slowly die away. So in other
> words, it will be a temporary "problem", and both wikis will soon enough
have
> required fully equal status.
>
> Cheers,
> Bjarte Sorensen
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:25:05 -0800
> From: "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales at wikia.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikinews demo launches!
> To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <20041115202505.GE21242 at wikia.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Jama Poulsen wrote:
> > Has anyone been thinking about how Wikinews could cooperate with the
> > Independent Media Center (IMC) project (http://www.indymedia.org)?
>
> I think that the culture clash would be substantial.  Virtually all of
> their text content is completely unusable due to strong POV.
>
> I do think that Indymedia should use wikis, because I think that much
> of their reporting could be strengthened by having an open editing
> process.  Most of their worst biases would not last 5 minutes in an
> open editing situation.  Even activists should learn that neutrality
> is a powerful means to persuade people, as compared to radical
> ranting.
>
> --Jimbo
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:44:04 -0800
> From: "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales at wikia.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Fwd: Banned from editing except on en
> To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <20041115214404.GC32013 at wikia.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Henry H. Tan-Tenn wrote:
> > > You are banned from editing at any wikipedia site other than en.
> >
> > Personally (and with all due respect to Jimbo), I'd prefer that
> > judgement be left to individual Wikipedias to decide, per their usual
> > policy of banning users.
>
> The problem is: he has been making annoying edits on wikipedias that
> do not have any current users.  He removed all the interlanguage links
> from one, and replaced the standard boilerplate text with his own
> message and email address.  When Angela fixed this, he reverted her.
>
> This is just one example of an ongoing pattern of difficult behavior.
>
> He is one of the main factors forcing us to pursue a policy locking or
> closing small wikis, which is of course ironic, since he is an
> activist for small language wikis.
>
> He and I had a partly constructive dialogue about these issues earlier
> today in IRC, and I am hopeful that some compromise can be worked out.
>
> I admire his energy and enthusiasm, and I find him to be very bright.
> But there have been several incidents that are just problematic to say
> the least (look up the unresolved issue of sockpuppets for example),
> and his hostility and personal attacks against people who are highly
> respected in the community don't help at all.
>
> I took this action at a global level rather than at an individual
> project level, because that's where the problem has arisen.
>
> If you want him to be able to edit at zh-min-nan, then that is enough
> for me.  He can do that.  If anyone wants to vouch for him anywhere
> else (in an active project), email me and it will be done.
>
> --Jimbo
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: 15 Nov 2004 23:30:00 +0100
> From: erik_moeller at gmx.de (Erik Moeller)
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikinews demo launches!
> To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <9Kt$0Y8CpVB at erik_moeller>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Jimmy-
> > Jama Poulsen wrote:
> >> Has anyone been thinking about how Wikinews could cooperate with the
> >> Independent Media Center (IMC) project (http://www.indymedia.org)?
>
> > I think that the culture clash would be substantial.  Virtually all of
> > their text content is completely unusable due to strong POV.
>
> I certainly would like us to cooperate wherever reasonably possible.
> Indymedia explicitly does not want to follow a neutral point of view, and
> that is good -- otherwise they'd be competing with us and we'd have to
> destroy them ;-). They can take Wikinews content and develop it from a
> lefty POV, if they want. I for one would be interested in some of their
> video and picture material. It's perfectly legitimate for Wikinews to
> cover the same protests Indymedia does, for example, but from an NPOV.
>
> I'll be talking to some of the Indymedia folks in the coming weeks WRT
> license compatibility. They have already expressed some interest.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 18:41:42 -0500
> From: "Henry H. Tan-Tenn" <share2002nov at lomaji.com>
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Fwd: Banned from editing except on en
> To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <cnbern$90t$1 at sea.gmane.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Hi, Jimbo,
>
> You are quite right that the inactive Wikipedias are not being cared
> for, except by some dedicated Wikipedian admins from the outside.  So if
> indeed someone has been a troublemaker (i.e. editing in bad faith) on
> those inactive WPs, he or she should be judged accordingly, and I think
> you and others have the trust of the larger community to make such a
> decision.  But again, I am not comfortable with the idea of a global ban
> (except en:).  I think each of the active WPs should consider the record
> in the context of actual edits performed in each edition.  That is,
> assume he or she is on a "white list" for all WPs, and only ban him/her
> _locally_ for violating specific community policies (which could well
> differ).  It could mean that a persistent editor would need to be banned
> by and from all WPs, one by one, but so be it.  (It maybe enough, IMO,
> that all the WPs be notified that so-and-so is believed to have edited
> in bad faith on one or more WP, and leave it at that.)
>
> It was along this line that I proposed to remove Mark from a wide "black
> list" as regards zh-min-nan (to be confirmed or rejected by other
> editors there, of course).  In that sense I was "vouching" for Mark, and
> only in that sense (given my limited attempt to follow the discussion).
>
> Anyway, I hope things work out for all.
>
> ~~~~
>
>
> Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales ti 2004/11/15 EP 04:44 sia-kong:
> > Henry H. Tan-Tenn wrote:
> >
> >>>You are banned from editing at any wikipedia site other than en.
> >>
> >>Personally (and with all due respect to Jimbo), I'd prefer that
> >>judgement be left to individual Wikipedias to decide, per their usual
> >>policy of banning users.
> >
> >
> > The problem is: he has been making annoying edits on wikipedias that
> > do not have any current users.  He removed all the interlanguage links
> > from one, and replaced the standard boilerplate text with his own
> > message and email address.  When Angela fixed this, he reverted her.
> >
> > This is just one example of an ongoing pattern of difficult behavior.
> >
> > He is one of the main factors forcing us to pursue a policy locking or
> > closing small wikis, which is of course ironic, since he is an
> > activist for small language wikis.
> >
> > He and I had a partly constructive dialogue about these issues earlier
> > today in IRC, and I am hopeful that some compromise can be worked out.
> >
> > I admire his energy and enthusiasm, and I find him to be very bright.
> > But there have been several incidents that are just problematic to say
> > the least (look up the unresolved issue of sockpuppets for example),
> > and his hostility and personal attacks against people who are highly
> > respected in the community don't help at all.
> >
> > I took this action at a global level rather than at an individual
> > project level, because that's where the problem has arisen.
> >
> > If you want him to be able to edit at zh-min-nan, then that is enough
> > for me.  He can do that.  If anyone wants to vouch for him anywhere
> > else (in an active project), email me and it will be done.
> >
> > --Jimbo
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 15:58:10 +0100 (MET)
> From: cdamvvwgs at gmx.ch
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Baseldytsch Wikipedia: Who can put it online?
> To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <31797.1100530690 at www26.gmx.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hello dear Wikipedians,
> I listed a proposal for a Wikipedia in Baseldytsch (a swiss-german dialect
> in Switzerland with its own dictionary and orthography, about one million
> speakers; see also http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/
> Request_for_new_language). I'm currently translating the interface (http:/
> /meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Locales_for_the_Wikipedia_Software), but is there
> anyone who can put the Baseldytsch Wikipedia online under the domain http:
> //bsd.wikipedia.org/ ??? If yes, please do so! Or send me an e-mail how to
> do so. Thank you very much,
> CdaMVvWgS
>
> --
> Geschenkt: 3 Monate GMX ProMail + 3 Top-Spielfilme auf DVD
> ++ Jetzt kostenlos testen http://www.gmx.net/de/go/mail ++
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 10:55:29 -0600
> From: Chuck0 <chuck at mutualaid.org>
> Subject: Re: [IMC-Tech] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikinews demo launches!
> To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Cc: imc-tech at lists.indymedia.org
> Message-ID: <4198DF81.6020201 at mutualaid.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> Jama Poulsen wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 07:05:46PM -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
> >
> >>http://demo.wikinews.org/
> >>
> >>After the successful wikinews vote
> >>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Vote
> >>
> >>the board has discussed and decided to move forward with this project!
> >>This will also give people more of a chance to discuss the proposed
> >>policies before the site goes live.
> >
> >
> > Has anyone been thinking about how Wikinews could cooperate with the
> > Independent Media Center (IMC) project (http://www.indymedia.org)?
>
> > In short, it seems to me that if these two projects could join forces,
> > the end result would be more than just Wikinews and IMC separately.
>
> I'm skeptical about this idea. What is the political orientation of
> Wikinews? Indymedia exists as an alternative media space for the
> political left (broadly defined). Is Wikinews apolitical, left-leaning,
> or friendly towards neo-fascists? I've been told that Wikipedia is run
> by right wing libertarians, so hwo do we know that the volunteer work
> put into a joint project won't be exploited by venture capitalists when
> they try to turn Wikipedia into an IPO?
>
> I'm opposed to this partnership until it can be determined how Indymedia
> would benefit from any partnership with a newly launched project.
>
> Chuck Munson
> Infoshop News
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:30:06 -0700
> From: jeff <jeff at indymedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [IMC-Tech] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikinews demo launches!
> To: imc-tech at lists.indymedia.org
> Cc: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org, Chuck0 <chuck at mutualaid.org>
> Message-ID: <200411151630.06184.jeff at indymedia.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain;  charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Chuck0 wrote:
> > Jama Poulsen wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 07:05:46PM -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo)
> Wales wrote:
> > >>http://demo.wikinews.org/
> > > Has anyone been thinking about how Wikinews could cooperate
> > > with the Independent Media Center (IMC) project
> > > (http://www.indymedia.org)?
> >
> > I'm skeptical about this idea. What is the political
> > orientation of Wikinews?
>
> My guess is that it would have the "Neutral Point of View". I've
> been impressed at how well wikipedia has been able to maintain
> this goal on controversial subjects.
>
> > Indymedia exists as an alternative
> > media space for the political left (broadly defined). Is
> > Wikinews apolitical, left-leaning, or friendly towards
> > neo-fascists?
>
> That's a bit harsh. Can you point to a single wikipedia article
> that has been friendly to neo-fascists?
>
> Indymedia is "left-leaning" but could certainly be an
> automated/semi-automated contributor to wikinews even if there
> are viewpoints on there that are generally not on Indymedia.
> Wikinews could have both, like news.google. Wikinews is
> probably more sympathetic to Indymedia than google as well.
> See the wikipedia entry on Indymedia--it's current & good:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indymedia
>
> Or take a look at their entry on Anarchism (which nicely links
> to Chuck's infoshop.org):
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
>
> > I've been told that Wikipedia is run by right
> > wing libertarians, so hwo do we know that the volunteer work
> > put into a joint project won't be exploited by venture
> > capitalists when they try to turn Wikipedia into an IPO?
>
> wikipedia is a non-profit and the articles are under the GFDL. I
> doubt it will ever go IPO... For more info, see:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Overview_FAQ#Who_owns_Wikipedia.3F
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home
>
> If it ever does turn commercial, you can download the /entire/
> database and set up your own wikipedia and do whatever you want
> with the articles as long as you comply with the GFDL. See:
> http://download.wikimedia.org/
>
> I wish Indymedia database dumps were publicly available!
>
> > I'm opposed to this partnership until it can be determined
> > how Indymedia would benefit from any partnership with a newly
> > launched project.
>
> It could benefit by wider distribution of Indymedia content.
> Wikipedia has a huge audience, and deservedly so. In general,
> I'm in favor of collaboration between wikinews & indymedia.
>
> Chuck, stop dissing one of my favorite Internet projects. ;)
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Jeff
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
> End of Wikipedia-l Digest, Vol 16, Issue 31
> *******************************************
>
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Oops

body:
Ahh, I sent the whole digest to the list again, did I not.  That'll teach me
to speak my mind in the middle of the night.

My apologies.

-------------------
Craig Franklin
PO Box 764
Ashgrove, Q, 4060
Australia
http://www.halo-17.net - Australia's Favourite Source of Indie Music, Art,
and Culture.


from_name: Michael Snow

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: About the reliability of the Wikipedia process and
	content

body:
Charles Matthews wrote:

>Fred Bauder wrote
>
>
>>The problem is that it is not reasonable to trust academics as any
>>thoughtful and observant person who attended an institution of higher
>>learning knows. Most academics have some axe to grind.
>>
>>
>Correct as far as it goes.  But more to the point is that until WP editing
>looks good on a CV, no academic worth having will give it the attention.
>
>
Actually, I don't think the tipping point will be when someone can claim
Wikipedia work among their academic publications. Rather, people will
pay attention when they find information being disseminated from
Wikipedia that they disagree with. Academics will go to considerable
lengths to refute what they consider misinformation when it is
propagated in the forums they respect - just grab a few academic
journals and scan through the letters to the editor.

--Michael Snow


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:58:37 -0700, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> "Or are you happy to contribute copyright violations as long as they
> are 'in the target language'?"
>
> If I were me, I'd ask Angela to apologise if she asked me to apologise.

I think that's a quite reasonable thing to ask. You took a text from a
website, and put it on Wikipedia. In my book that's a copyright
violation. Your argument that it was a government website does not
hold water - US government publications are free of copyright, but
other countries have other rules. In general, it is a bad thing to
take texts from other sites unless they specifically state that they
are not under copyright.

Andre Engels


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: About the reliability of the Wikipedia process
	and	content

body:
Michael Snow wrote:

> Charles Matthews wrote:
>
>> Fred Bauder wrote
>>
>>
>>> The problem is that it is not reasonable to trust academics as any
>>> thoughtful and observant person who attended an institution of higher
>>> learning knows. Most academics have some axe to grind.
>>>
>>
>> Correct as far as it goes.  But more to the point is that until WP
>> editing
>> looks good on a CV, no academic worth having will give it the attention.
>>
>>
> Actually, I don't think the tipping point will be when someone can
> claim Wikipedia work among their academic publications. Rather, people
> will pay attention when they find information being disseminated from
> Wikipedia that they disagree with. Academics will go to considerable
> lengths to refute what they consider misinformation when it is
> propagated in the forums they respect - just grab a few academic
> journals and scan through the letters to the editor.

We already see that happening regularly - the hallmark is that
some anon will descend on the article, add a large amount of
technical and detailed content with references but not in the
usual WP style, then leave a snippy note on the talk page
about how much they had to correct. 1/2 :-)

Stan


from_name: Angela

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia on Radio 4

body:
There will be a discussion of encyclopedias, including, of course,
Wikipedia, on the "You and Yours" programme on BBC Radio 4 tomorrow
(Wednesday) afternoon.

The programme is on from approximately 12-1pm (UTC) and the Wikipedia
part is expected to start about half way though.

There are details on the programme, though not specifically Wikipedia
yet, at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/ and you can also
listen to it via http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4.shtml?fm

Angela.


from_name: Till Westermayer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Baseldytsch Wikipedia: Who can put it online?

body:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . till we *) . . .

Or, alternativly, create an schwytzerd?tsch wikipedia, instead of
starting with a small subset of schwytzerd?tsch?

>Could you please check http://als.wikipedia.org first? It was
>started as a Wikipedia in Elsassisch, but has recently been
>extended to cover all Alemannic dialects, to which Baseldytsch
>also belongs.

>Andre Engels

>On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 15:58:10 +0100 (MET), cdamvvwgs at gmx.ch
><cdamvvwgs at gmx.ch> wrote:
>> Hello dear Wikipedians,
>> I listed a proposal for a Wikipedia in Baseldytsch (a
>> swiss-german dialect in Switzerland with its own dictionary and
>> orthography, about one million speakers; see also
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ Request_for_new_language). I'm
>> currently translating the interface (http:/
>> /meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Locales_for_the_Wikipedia_Software),
>> but is there anyone who can put the Baseldytsch Wikipedia online
>> under the domain http: //bsd.wikipedia.org/ ??? If yes, please
>> do so! Or send me an e-mail how to do so. Thank you very much,
>> CdaMVvWgS
>>
>> --
>> Geschenkt: 3 Monate GMX ProMail + 3 Top-Spielfilme auf DVD
>> ++ Jetzt kostenlos testen http://www.gmx.net/de/go/mail ++
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

 __ .
 / / / /                            ... Till Westermayer - till we *)
. .
  . mailto:till at tillwe.de . www.westermayer.de/till/ . icq 320393072
  . Hirschstra?e 5. 79100 Freiburg . 0761 55697152 . 0160 96619179
  . . . . .


from_name: John Lee

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WP:3RR

body:
Yes. If there are numerous users on both sides reverting, then the page
should be protected. But if clearly one side has many users reverting
one or two users' edits, either those users are in the wrong (and thus
probably should step up discussion on the talk page) or malicious
vandals have ganged up (in which case, things are likely to escalate to
the level which would require page protection). So in the end, there's
no harm done. Quite often, as counter-intuitive as it may seem, might
does make right (or in this case, lead to an ending which will force
consensus).

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])

Mark Richards wrote:

>Surely you are joking? We guage the truth by the
>number of people who believe it?
>Mark
>
>--- Mark Pellegrini <mapellegrini at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>"Sometimes particular articles attract several edit
>>warriors, and often it's
>>two or three against one. If that one person "uses
>>up" his three reverts,
>>the others still have several to go before they are
>>also banned."
>>
>>That's the whole idea of the 3 revert rule. If
>>multiple people
>>are reverting you, and no one is coming to help,
>>then you're
>>probably in the wrong.
>>
>>--Mark
>>
>>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Britannica FUD

body:
EB is not an encyclopedia, it's a book where scholars write about the
stuff they know.

It has nothing to see with an encyclopedia as it was created by the
philosophers of the Enlightenement. That kind of compendium existed long
before and will continue to be useful... but it's not an encyclopedia !

Daniel Mayer wrote:

>Before making fun of Wikipedia Robert McHenry and other EB FUD writers should
>compare our content to theirs.
>
>For example, the 11th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica had *exactly* the same
>error as our article had. EB should have had an article on Alexander Hamilton
>for about 100 years by the time the 11th edition was published in 1911.
>
>See http://14.1911encyclopedia.org/H/HA/HAMILTON_ALEXA NDER.htm
>
>Wikipedia is less than 4 years old.
>
>More in my Slashdot post (somebody mod me up!):
>
>http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=129854&threshold=0&commentsort=3&tid=95&tid=1&mode=thread&cid=10836303
>
>-- mav
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] 404 handler caching

body:
On Tue, 2004-16-11 at 16:56 -0800, Brion Vibber wrote:
> Spiffy. There are some obvious problems of course, namely the loss of
> all the user options and message notifications...
>
Well, so, here's my theory: if we get an email-notification (or even
IM/Jabber notification... mmmm!) built-in, it will make new-message
notifications much less crucial.

Also, I think that it's possible to do some CSS, cookies and
Javascript-based client-side skinning that would obviate the need for
most of the user preferences we have now. I'm thinking something along
these lines...

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/alternate/

...but I think that's where we're going to have to go with Wikitravel.
We just can't afford the cycles to figure out who likes ? and who likes
red paint for broken links.

> Your client-side cache problem on edit should be solved by sending
> appropriate cache-control headers to force the client to re-check on
> every hit. I'm not sure offhand how to get Apache to do that, but I
> suspect it's doable.

I'm thinking about trying to tag a random URL parameter at the end,
like:

    http://example.com/wiki/Some_title_here?random=04567AC1

...but there might be an easier way to do that.

The problem is hard to reproduce, though.

> The template invalidation list query is really ugly; we really should
> remember to stuff things in a template link table for 1.4; it shouldn't
> be that hard.

Yeah, it's a bummer. A mitigating factor for Wikitravel is that we don't
use a lot of templates yet.

Another thing I'd really love is to concentrate on for 1.4 is building
extension modules rather than a monolithic application. I'd really like
to enable some kind of hooks-processing to make building behaviour
extensions easier.

~ESP

--
Evan Prodromou <evan at wikitravel.org>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20041117/73a2403b/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Lars Alvik

body:
P? 16. nov. 2004 kl. 22.51 skrev Olve Utne:

> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 20:17:35 +0200, Andy Rabagliati wrote:
>> Amongst some truly great discussion, we should remember pt:, and ask
>> again if all the nn: and nb: folks could swallow their differences
>> and skim through the other dialect as if it were their own. We have
>> been told that they all understand both.
>
> Dear Andy Rablagliati:
>
> Norwegians also understand English, Swedish and Danish. Swedes mostly
> understand Norwegian and English, and, to varying degrees, Danish.
> Danes mostly understand Norwegian Bokm?l and English, and, to varying
> degrees, Swedish. Most Dutch and many Belgians understand English.
> Bokm?l and Nynorsk are not dialects, they are written languages --
> each with a solid tradition. Should we then close down all but one of
> the four Scandinavian Wikipedias, as well as the Dutch one? And how
> about the Afrikaans one? (English, Dutch) Or the Alemannish one?
> (German, French) Or the Panjabi one? (Hindi, Urdu)  How about the
> Spanish/Asturian/Galego/Portuguese situation? If you know either
> Spanish or Portuguese and you know a bit of language history, it is
> reasonably easy to read all of them! But that doesn't make it any more
> or less "justified" for them to have a feeling of what is their
> language identity!
>
> As for Alemannish, I have no serious problem reading it with my
> background in knowing German, Yiddish and some Dutch. But I will not
> ask for it to be closed down, and I do not think would be appropriate
> in any way for me as an outsider to tell them to quit their project
> and work only within the German or French wikipedias instead!
>
>> Balkanisation has irretrievable consequences. We are in the
>> information business, and the information comes first.
>
> Information indeed comes first.
>
> In this case, we are talking about two literary languages, each with a
> solid tradition going back about a hundred years as a separate
> language for Bokm?l (defined as the time of the first major
> orthographic reform away from Danish) and 150 years for Nynorsk
> (defined by the publishing of Ivar Aasen's dictionary and grammar of
> "Det norske Folkesprog". Both Bokm?l and Nynorsk have their own,
> extensive literature -- with authors like Olav Duun, Tarjei Vesaas,
> Aslaug Moren Vesaas, Arne Garborg, Kjartan Fl?gstad, Olav H. Hauge and
> many others in Nynorsk; and Andr? Bjerke, Knut Hamsun, Johan
> Falkberget, Johan Bojer, Anne-Cath. Vestly, and many others in Bokm?l.
> Both Bokm?l (< Riksm?l < Rigsmaal < Danish) and Nynorsk (< Landsm?l <
> Landsmaal < "Det norske Folkesprog") have had separate, clear
> identities continually since the mid-1800s.
>
> Both Bokm?l and Nynorsk each have status as official languages in
> Norway.
>
> The morphology and orthography of Bokm?l and Nynorsk differ to a much
> higher degree than is the case of UK vs. US English or the Portuguese
> of Portugal vs. Brazil.
>
> It has also been made clear a few times already in this discussion
> that we are not talking about splitting up Bokm?l and Nynorsk. *That
> has already happened,* after it became clear that the experiment of
> joining the two didn't work all that well for practical reasons. It
> appears that that was a good move in that it created a new base of
> recruitment, and the new users tend to work in both Nynorsk and
> Bokm?l, making it a win-win situation for everyone. There is what
> appears to be a minority opinion (Ulf Lunde) of splitting the "mostly
> Bokm?l" and an "entirely Bokm?l" Wikipedia -- a proposal it appears
> that most of the debattants on wikipedia-l do not in fact support. The
> topic we are discussing is whether the mostly Bokm?l Wikipedia on no:
> should move from the countrycode no: for Norway to the language code
> nb: for Bokm?l. Also, we are discussing -- and your input would be
> appreciated there -- is how to implement a solution where we can let
> these two languages, together with Swedish and Danish, have optimal
> opportunities for integration and cooperation while also keeping them
> separate enough that it is possible to have a good workspace for
> fine-tuning of grammar and orthography within each language as well as
> having an easier time figuring out what information is lacking in one
> or more of these languages.

Never the less, it's these users that should decide the fate of no:,
perhaps a vote for these suggestions:
1. My (profoss) suggestion (identical to Utnes except no: stays on no:
and becomes de jure (compared to todays de facto) bokm?lwiki.
2. Utnes suggestion (no: moves lock, stock to nb: and no: is kept
(forever!) as a redirect to nb:
3. Status quo.

The redirect serverside ensures that we don't have to mess with manual
redirects and supervise an otherwised closed wiki, perhaps give a
special status to nn: interwikilinks, print "Denne artikkelen finnes
ogs? p? nynorsk (articlename on nynorsk) on the top or some other
solution. The permanent no: redirection is to ensure that the
dominating language in norway can still use no: without hassel,
disambigulationpages only serve to confuse. Someone that clicks on no:
expects to end up with bokm?l, it's after all the perfered written
language for around 90% of the population.

As much as i respect nynorsk (it's not my language, but some of my
fellow countrymen use it)

It's nessicary that the debate is dropped dead after that, really dead.

mvh. Lars Alvik


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Data Transfer from usemod to mediawiki?

body:
On Nov 16, 2004, at 10:51 PM, Philipp wrote:
>> You could probably hack the script to do that.
>
> OK, plenty of space for experiments. :) Thank you again.

I've added conversion of /Subpage and CamelCase links (by saving a new
revision with the brackets added). You could probably further hack that
if you want renaming of actual pages.

The update is checked into CVS, and should appear shortly at:
http://cvs.defau.lt/phase3/maintenance/importUseModWiki.php

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20041117/7c294cc9/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikipedia Eclipse Editor Plugin

body:
On Nov 17, 2004, at 3:22 AM, Klaus Hartlage wrote:
> I started to write a Wikipedia Eclipse Editor Plugin and would like to
> know,
> if there is a XMLRPC or SOAP interface (in the future) to read/update
> Wikipedia articles.

Not currently. There is an experimental read-only SOAP interface in
CVS, which may or may not be kept or expanded in the future.

> If yes, is there alread a Java API available?
> If no, is it possible to update multiple wikitexts through the HTTP
> forms
> (with the httpclient.jar API) or is this regarded as spamming?

See bot policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots

There's a suite of Python-based tools you might take a look at:
http://pywikipediabot.sf.net/

Also see the jEdit Wikipedia plugin:
http://www.djini.de/software/wikipedia/index.html

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20041117/a18c59e7/attachment.pgp>


body:
I think so! ;) This is a legitimate part of a debate
about what content should go in. Do you want to delete
the other 'advocacy pages'? Is the problem with this
that it is satirical?
Mark

> Am I completely out of touch with everyone else on
> this?
>
> Zoney
>
> --
> ~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5
> seconds...
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:3RR

body:
--- Shane King <wikipedia at dontletsstart.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 08:10:23PM -0800, Mark
> Richards wrote:
> > --- Shane King <wikipedia at dontletsstart.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 06:02:51PM -0800, Mark
> > > Richards wrote:
> > > > So you think that in science pages, for
> example,
> > > space
> > > > should be given to different theories based on
> > > their
> > > > relative popularity? This will wreak havock on
> > > > evolution, not to mention gravity!
> > > > Are you really serious?
> > > > Mark
> > >
> > > I'm not discussing what I think should be done,
> I'm
> > > discussing what I
> > > believe current policy to specify. I believe
> > > creationism has no place at
> > > all in an article on science. That's neither
> here
> > > nor there though.
> > >
> > > Shane.
> >
> > But if we take seriously the idea that if many
> people
> > believe it it should be given space, you must do
> that,
> > surely.
> > Mark
>
> I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I must
> do what?
>
> If you're saying I must put those views in articles,
> I disagree. I can
> choose not to edit those articles and let other
> people work on them.
>
> If you're saying that if I do choose to work on
> articles, I'm obliged to
> put views in that I personally think to be wrong but
> are popular, then I
> think you're absolutely right. Like I said, I
> personally feel
> creationism has no place in an article on science. I
> don't edit to my
> personal feelings though, I edit to policy (or at
> least I try). That's
> why I said my personal feelings are neither here nor
> there: only what's
> currently policy matters.
>
> Anyway, we're probably getting a bit off topic now,
> so I'll shut up. :)
>
> Shane.

Hi - ok, let me give an example. Let's suppose that
the religious right were able to muster a relatively
small number of people to edit here on the evolution
pages. Are you saying that, if there are a large
number of people editing on the 'side' of that, then
it should go in?
If not, can you clarify what you did mean?
Thanks,
Mark

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com


from_name: Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales

body:
Zoney wrote:
> Surely the Wikipedia namespace is just there to help out with the
> running of the project?
>
> Am I completely out of touch with everyone else on this?

Not sure, but as for me, I think a little fun is part of helping out
with the running of the project.  The Germans already think we are
humor impaired enough as it is. ;-)

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikinews demo launches!

body:
> >so how do we know that the volunteer work
> >put into a joint project won't be exploited by venture capitalists when
> >they try to turn Wikipedia into an IPO?

Craig wrote:
> This sort of thing is why I feel it will be difficult to come to a
> compromise.

I agree.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:3RR

body:
Mark Richards wrote:
> So you think that in science pages, for example, space
> should be given to different theories based on their
> relative popularity? This will wreak havock on
> evolution, not to mention gravity!
> Are you really serious?

I think he is serious, but that you've misunderstood him.

All that he's saying, I think, is that as a matter of social reality,
in the vast majority of cases where there is one person reverting
against a large group, and no one else is interested in helping out,
it's because the one person is doing something obnoxious.

That's not saying that the truth is determined by majority vote or
anything like that, ti's just an observation about the facts on the
ground around here.

--Jimbo


body:
Node and I reached a compromise and he's not banned from editing
on non-en sites anymore.

--Jimbo


from_name: Philipp

body:
Hello,

> I'm suprised that isnt in the documentation -

So was I ...

> Wikipedia moved from UseMod to MediaWiki a few years back itself!

... I spent a remarkable amount of time having this information in
mind and thinking "there must be a writeup how they did it", but I
found nothing, thus this question here.

Bye
   Philipp


body:
Hello,

> AFAIK there's no documentation, but a UseMod->MediaWiki converter
> script is in the maintenance subdirectory of the distribution:
> importUseModWiki.php

Ah, thank you. I'll continue research here.

> You could probably hack the script to do that.

OK, plenty of space for experiments. :) Thank you again.

Bye
   Philipp


from_name: Sean Barrett

body:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales stated for the record:

> Zoney wrote:
>
>>Surely the Wikipedia namespace is just there to help out with the
>>running of the project?
>>
>>Am I completely out of touch with everyone else on this?
>
>
> Not sure, but as for me, I think a little fun is part of helping out
> with the running of the project.  The Germans already think we are
> humor impaired enough as it is. ;-)
>
> --Jimbo

Now /that's/ scary....

--
  Sean Barrett     | I gazed into the abyss ... the abyss gazed
  sean at epoptic.com | into me ... neither of us cracked a smile.


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:3RR

body:
At 06:06 AM 11/17/2004 -0800, Mark Richards wrote:
>Hi - ok, let me give an example. Let's suppose that
>the religious right were able to muster a relatively
>small number of people to edit here on the evolution
>pages. Are you saying that, if there are a large
>number of people editing on the 'side' of that, then
>it should go in?
>If not, can you clarify what you did mean?
>Thanks,
>Mark

I can't answer for Shane, but I should point out that in this scenario the
NPOV policy would still be in full force and the Arbitration Committee
would still be available as a way to deal with those who absolutely refuse
to abide by it. The only difference would be that in this scenario there
would be a hard limit on _revert warring_. Revert warring is a separate
issue from article content, and is not the only way a person will be able
to get themselves banned if the 3RR policy goes into effect.


from_name: Lars Aronsson

body:
Olve Utne wrote:

> solid tradition. Should we then close down all but one of the four
> Scandinavian Wikipedias, as well as the Dutch one? And how about the

I personally think Bokm?l, "a northern version of Danish", would be a
good candidate for the single language of a (re-)united Scandinavia.
Perhaps Gothenburg would be a good compromise for a common capital.
But we would have to find a way to turn back time some 150 or 200
years to make this real.  Or maybe 500 years.

All of Scandinavia was one united kingdom between 1397 and 1523,
as described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalmar_Union

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


from_name: Christopher Mahan

subject:
[WikiEN-l] About the reliability of the Wikipedia process and
	content

body:
--- "steven l. rubenstein" <rubenste at ohiou.edu> wrote:
<huge snip/>
> These two ideas are off the top of my head and I am sure that even
> if you
> like them they need much more refinement.  I hope there are enough
> other
> people out there who get what I am suggesting, and are willing to
> improve
> on the ideas!

I appreciate what Steven has written. I agree with this in spirit and
recommend that people on this list read it.

=====
Chris Mahan
818.943.1850 cell
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
chris.mahan at gmail.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com


from_name: Ulf Lunde

body:
My thanks to Olve Utne for summing up the situation (including the opinion of
Ulf Lunde and the lack of expressed support for that view) correctly!

And thanks to Lars Alvik for proposing some simple one-liners as alternative
solutions between which to choose.  I think that is what we need now!

Lars Alvik's list (in what may or may not be his order of preference) comprised
these choices:

  1. no: stays on "no:" and becomes de jure (compared to todays de
facto) bokm?l-Wikipedia.
  2. no: moves lock, stock to "nb:", and "no:" is kept as a redirect to nb:
  3. Status quo: no: stays a mixed Wikipedia, but with a bokm?l user interface.

I hope it does not come as a surprise that I would like the vote to include my
initial proposal:
  4. "The split": Do with nb: exactly as we did with nn: (and leave
no: untouched).

I would vote for 4 because in my view it is the least controversial
solution, based on
my observations that:
"1" is unfair to nynorsk and politically very explosive.
"2" is unfair to nynorsk since it would "hide" articles from nn:, no
matter how good
they are, if there exist articles on nb: (no matter how poor) with the
same title.
"3" is asymmetrical and unfair to bokm?l, since it implies that we do
not get a pure
bokm?l Wikipedia anywhere. (However, in the spirit of Andy Rabagliati,
most current
users of no: do not seem to care about that).

All other proposals seem to include more or less complex schemes of dis-
ambiguation pages and advanced cross linking.  Perhaps we should keep it
simple.

Ulf Lunde


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
Ulf Lunde wrote:

>My thanks to Olve Utne for summing up the situation (including the opinion of
>Ulf Lunde and the lack of expressed support for that view) correctly!
>
>And thanks to Lars Alvik for proposing some simple one-liners as alternative
>solutions between which to choose.  I think that is what we need now!
>
>Lars Alvik's list (in what may or may not be his order of preference) comprised
>these choices:
>
>  1. no: stays on "no:" and becomes de jure (compared to todays de
>facto) bokm?l-Wikipedia.
>  2. no: moves lock, stock to "nb:", and "no:" is kept as a redirect to nb:
>  3. Status quo: no: stays a mixed Wikipedia, but with a bokm?l user interface.
>
>I hope it does not come as a surprise that I would like the vote to include my
>initial proposal:
>  4. "The split": Do with nb: exactly as we did with nn: (and leave
>no: untouched).
>
>I would vote for 4 because in my view it is the least controversial
>solution, based on
>my observations that:
>"1" is unfair to nynorsk and politically very explosive.
>"2" is unfair to nynorsk since it would "hide" articles from nn:, no
>matter how good
>they are, if there exist articles on nb: (no matter how poor) with the
>same title.
>"3" is asymmetrical and unfair to bokm?l, since it implies that we do
>not get a pure
>bokm?l Wikipedia anywhere. (However, in the spirit of Andy Rabagliati,
>most current
>users of no: do not seem to care about that).
>
>All other proposals seem to include more or less complex schemes of dis-
>ambiguation pages and advanced cross linking.  Perhaps we should keep it
>simple.
>
>Ulf Lunde
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
In the coming 1.4 mediawiki software there will be, if I am well
informed, a new option in the user preferences that allow you to select
a user interface. This would allow for having Nynorsk, Danish, Dutch or
Chinese as your userinterface.

1.4 will be there before the end of the year is the plan. Otherwise this
could end up in 1.4.1 ??

Thanks,
    GerardM


from_name: Charles Matthews

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: About the reliability of the Wikipedia process
	andcontent

body:
Michael Snow wrote

>Academics will go to considerable
> lengths to refute what they consider misinformation when it is
> propagated in the forums they respect - just grab a few academic
> journals and scan through the letters to the editor.

True in some cases - an article in "Nature" for example.  I should probably
have qualified my point.  We know that academics, those with higher degree
and graduate students are amongst the most valuable contributors (alongside
others who are not in any way academics).  It is helpful to isolate what you
could call 'pro bono' work to discuss.  That is, one can consider that
idealised situation of an academic authority in a field sitting down to
write an article for WP, or edit into shape a page, with the same
seriousness, fact- and reference-checking, and commitment as she or he would
apply to a survey written for a learned journal.  Well, that is what is
unlikely to happen on a wiki, however prominent.

Charles


from_name: Shane King

subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:3RR

body:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 07:24:42AM -0800, Mark Richards wrote:
> Surely you are joking? We guage the truth by the
> number of people who believe it?
> Mark

Wikipedia doesn't (or shouldn't) gauge the truth AT ALL. Isn't that what
the neutral point of view policy is all about? We're supposed to say
"here's what various people think, make up your own mind".

To that end I would say, in general, the more people on your side in an
edit war the more likely you are to be "right", in the sense of the
edits you want are in the spirit of wikipedia. Obviously this is not
a hard and fast rule, but as a guideline I'd say it applies. If we are
to assume good faith, how can we think otherwise?

Shane.


body:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 04:38:40PM -0800, Daniel Mayer wrote:
> --- Mark Richards <marich712000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > What makes you think either that the current system is
> > creating mediocrity, or that the proposed review board
> > would be better? It seems that what is being proposed
> > is removing the value added of an open content
> > encyclopedia, and would be damaging for that reason.
>
> One thing the current EB FUD was right about is that sometimes good articles
> are edited into becoming worse articles.

If you accept that conclusion, then you must also accept the conclusion
than any changes a review board makes to an article could also make the
article worse.

I'm not saying that they will or wont, I think we can't know until it's
given a try. However, I don't think it's a given that a review board will at
worst maintain the status quo.

Shane.


body:
P? 17. nov. 2004 kl. 09.58 skrev Ulf Lunde:

> My thanks to Olve Utne for summing up the situation (including the
> opinion of
> Ulf Lunde and the lack of expressed support for that view) correctly!
>
> And thanks to Lars Alvik for proposing some simple one-liners as
> alternative
> solutions between which to choose.  I think that is what we need now!
>
> Lars Alvik's list (in what may or may not be his order of preference)
> comprised
> these choices:
>
>   1. no: stays on "no:" and becomes de jure (compared to todays de
> facto) bokm?l-Wikipedia.
>   2. no: moves lock, stock to "nb:", and "no:" is kept as a redirect
> to nb:
>   3. Status quo: no: stays a mixed Wikipedia, but with a bokm?l user
> interface.
>
> I hope it does not come as a surprise that I would like the vote to
> include my
> initial proposal:
>   4. "The split": Do with nb: exactly as we did with nn: (and leave
> no: untouched).

As i pointed out before, this is assisted suicide of no: and bokm?l and
it only serve the nynorsk minority. It'll create extra work, confusion
and deversion. Least controversial for you eh. Well it's the most
controversial suggestion (after what i've gather from talking to other
users on no:).

> I would vote for 4 because in my view it is the least controversial
> solution, based on
> my observations that:
> "1" is unfair to nynorsk and politically very explosive.

Bokm?l is, unlike nynorsk, can accualy be called a national language,
with 90% of the population speaking/writting in it. You should perhaps
look at Lars Aronsens mail:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-November/
035836.html its a clear and unbiased view on the conflict.

> "2" is unfair to nynorsk since it would "hide" articles from nn:, no
> matter how good
> they are, if there exist articles on nb: (no matter how poor) with the
> same title.

Interwikilinks!

> "3" is asymmetrical and unfair to bokm?l, since it implies that we do
> not get a pure
> bokm?l Wikipedia anywhere. (However, in the spirit of Andy Rabagliati,
> most current
> users of no: do not seem to care about that).

We allready got a "de facto" bokm?l wiki, we don't need a new one.

I wonder why this debate is held over the heads of the bokm?lusing
community on no:, perhaps the reason is that most users on no: don't
care about the debate.

mvh. Lars Alvik


from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
--- Christopher Mahan <chris_mahan at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Imagine I am Anonip the Egyptian, and I go to the article "Jerusalem"
> and get dropped into Revision 20040807:45. I read it, it's a lovely
> article, and I get all warm and fuzzy inside.

You would, by default, be dropped into the current version. There would be a
link at the top of the article to the reviewed version. Clicking on that link
would bring the person to the reviewed version where he/she could then click on
a diff link to see the differences between the reviewed version and the current
one.

> Then I decide to add something to it... Alas, we are now on version
> 20041116:398, the bastardized spawn of Hades, mangled to death by
> edit warriors, pov pushers, and a veritable army of sock puppets
> (would that be a drawerful?). I recoil in horror and decide to not
> edit, since, well, it's frankly quite depressing.

If the article had slipped into such a state, then it would be a good time to
start fresh from the last reviewed version and merge-in all the subsequent good
edits. What matters here is the content.

> So the average man, in constant fear of the marauding trolls and
> hordes of vandals, steers clear of the bleeding sword-edge version
> and stays within the clearly marked path of the Official and Right
> Version of Safety.

The average man is not the kind of person who edits Wikipedia now. Last time I
checked there were greater than 40 views to every edit (which was over a year
ago - I'm sure it is greater than 50:1 now but we don't seem to track those
stats anymore).

The big question is this:

Are we primarily here to create a community based on wiki principles, or are we
primarily here to expand access to the sum of human knowledge? My answer, and
I'm sure Jimbo, the board, and most longtimers will agree, is most certainly
the latter.

Having a review mechanism will enable us to much more easily move into other
areas of publication (like print and digital media). It will also make it
possible for our work to be much more trusted by end users.

Of course we should do this in a such a way so as to minimize negative impacts
on the community (which are responsible for maintaining and expanding our
work), but some aspects of community and 'wikiness' may have be compromised for
the sake of the product.

Wikipedia is not a social club and wiki is a means to an end.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com


body:
--- Shane King <wikipedia at dontletsstart.com> wrote:
> If you accept that conclusion, then you must also accept the conclusion
> than any changes a review board makes to an article could also make the
> article worse.

The review board reviews, they would not edit except as individuals. A review
may reject an article but have a list of items that would have to be addressed
before the article could be put up for review again. The quality of the process
depends on the mix of people involved and their level of dedication. So yes,
results may vary. But that is no different than dead-tree encyclopedias.

-- mav

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


from_name: Zoney

body:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 20:10:43 -0800 (PST), Mark Richards
<marich712000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm sorry - are you wanting people to vote to keep, or
> delete?
> Mark
>
> --- "csherlock at ljh.com.au" <csherlock at ljh.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I highly recommend everyone assist me with my
> > efforts to win this
> > competition - delete to keep!
> >
> > [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Extreme article
> > deletion]]
> >
> > Ta bu shi da yu
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
> http://my.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

See my comments on that debate. Are people content for the Wikipedia
namespace to have items other than the essentials needed for running
en:? I mean, even with just that, there's a LOT of operational clutter
(I think someone pointed this out on the village pump recently -
suggesting a cleanup).

I would suggest we try to tidy up the Wikipedia namespace, and move
jokes and satire to people's user space. I'm even suggesting this for
BJAODN. It would also mean that a user would have to take
responsibility for each page.

Surely the Wikipedia namespace is just there to help out with the
running of the project?

Am I completely out of touch with everyone else on this?

Zoney

--
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...


body:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:21:42 +1100, David Gerard
<fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Daniel Mayer (maveric149 at yahoo.com) [041117 10:43]:
> > --- Mark Richards <marich712000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I very much hope this does not happen. Setting up
> > > 'expert reviews' would be the death of the project.
>
> > But the goal of the project is to create the largest free resource of knowledge
> > that has ever existed. Wiki is a means to that end. So if some aspects of that
> > process start to result in a drive toward mediocre content, then we *must* make
> > some changes to put us back on track.
>
>
> We went through this (you and I) on this very list just recently. You're
> still reasoning along the lines of:
>
> 1. We must do something.
> 2. This is something.
> 3. Therefore, we must do this.
>
> Not only is this logically fallacious, you haven't really proven 1. as yet.
> Note that de: Wikipedia recently beat two commercial encyclopedias in blind
> testing without imposing review boards.
>
>
> > Adding some type of article review system that could scale to cover a large
> > part of our content would be a massive improvement. Experts should have seats
> > on those review boards, but so should non-experts. Neither the views of experts
> > or non-experts would carry more weight - both would be equal (the consensus
> > view of the board itself is what would count).
>
>
> I suspect review boards will not scale. What is the processing rate of a
> review board likely to be? How many articles are there again? How many
> being created each day?
>
> While reviewing content sounds like a good ide (to me too), there should be
> a way to do it wihtout seeming to repudiate the concept of the wiki. I'm
> not actually wedded to the idea myself, but repudiating it as you describe
> would be extremely jarring culturally and - and this is the important point
> - demotivating for the volunteers.
>
> If it can at all be done within the wiki process, it should be. de: is
> solid evidence it can be achieved within the wiki process; neither your
> assertions nor those of the Britannica editor are solid evidence it can't.
>
> (And I'm still seeking details of what de: did to get to that standard!
> Could someone on de: please tell us? cc'd to wikipedia-l for this purpose)
>
>
> - d.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

I have seen some articles degrade. In my opinion, some aspects of
[[European Union]] have degraded through the wiki process during my
time here. And yes, there's the old wiki mantra - "if it's broken, fix
it" - well hey, I don't know where to begin, it seems /less/ coherent
than in the past, despite new content. And European Union is
supposedly a featured article (I haven't nominated it for removal from
that, because it's not top priority for me right now. Perhaps it
should be.)

I am reasonably certain that some other articles, not even necessarily
contentious, have suffered due to people adding content in a
disorganised fashion.

I mean, the only reason the Irish content on en: is becoming somewhat
more coherent, is that a small group of us (a workable size of no more
than half a dozen core editors) are keeping a tight rein on things,
and looking for holes, and needed parent/daughter articles.
Personally, I think more small collaborative groups on particular
areas would go a long way towards keeping things organised. To
organise a subject area, one has to manage a plethora of
heirarchically organised articles. With EU subjects for example, that
isn't happening at present.

There are failings in the wiki system, and it does us no harm to
recognise them, rather than cry foul at our detractors. I feel there
are many ways that content can be kept more organised / reviewed, and
there's ample prospects of getting past any problems we have. But they
shouldn't be ignored.

No doubt I have ranted a tad here, or missed the topic of the
discussion, or come across as preachy. Please just take what you can
from my comments above, as the immediate reaction of one wiki editor!

Zoney

--
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...


body:
--- David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> We went through this (you and I) on this very list just recently. You're
> still reasoning along the lines of:
>
> 1. We must do something.
> 2. This is something.
> 3. Therefore, we must do this.

No, my reasoning is that there is a good deal of FUD about Wikipedia right now
and that some of it is *valid.* Just pretending that everything is fine as is
does not move us forward.

> Not only is this logically fallacious, you haven't really proven 1. as yet.
> Note that de: Wikipedia recently beat two commercial encyclopedias in blind
> testing without imposing review boards.

I would like to see the same test done on the English version before I jump to
that conclusion.

We also need a way to mark articles as being OK for a 1.0 version. We *can not*
just give out the most recent database dump.

> I suspect review boards will not scale. What is the processing rate of a
> review board likely to be? How many articles are there again? How many
> being created each day?

There could be different levels of review; at the lowest level we would have
what we have now, on top of that could be a reader feedback mechanism that is
in beta, the top level would be a review board review. The strengths of each
should be leveraged on the other. Users should have a choice of which versions
to use.

Scale issues are very important so we must develop ways to to quickly review
content. Only by starting on that road can we work out bottlenecks. Note: that
the featured article process selects the best of Wikipedia content and is
therefore slow. Review boards would not have 'best of' as part of its criteria
but would look at a short list of criteria before marking it as reviewed. Such
as:

1) Does it cover the basic aspects of the subject?
2) Are there any obvious errors of fact?
3) Are alternate views given an appropriate amount of space and qualified?
4) Mechanics (spelling, garmmar, etc)

> While reviewing content sounds like a good ide (to me too), there should be
> a way to do it wihtout seeming to repudiate the concept of the wiki.

I agree. That is why Bryan and I have suggested that users be given the most
recent version by default with a link to the last reviewed version.

> I'm
> not actually wedded to the idea myself, but repudiating it as you describe
> would be extremely jarring culturally and - and this is the important point
> - demotivating for the volunteers.

I AM NOT REPUDIATING WIKI!! I want to add better review mechanisms onto what we
are already doing (which is not pure wiki). When I say that wiki is a means to
an end, I am just pointing out that the product is more important than the
process. But if changes in the process harm the product, then those changes
will have to be modified. That is as true for wiki as it would be for any
review system.

> If it can at all be done within the wiki process, it should be. de: is
> solid evidence it can be achieved within the wiki process; neither your
> assertions nor those of the Britannica editor are solid evidence it can't.

Again, we need a way to check content before publishing it in print or digital
media. We also need a way to give users the *option* to see those checked
versions so that they do not have to worry if some nut job distorted the facts
presented in the article version the user is reading.

Studies that show the average quality of Wikipedia are better than other
encyclopedias will be *very* little comfort for those people who happen upon a
particular article in a sub-par state (however brief that may be).

> (And I'm still seeking details of what de: did to get to that standard!
> Could someone on de: please tell us? cc'd to wikipedia-l for this purpose)

Yes - that is very important information to know before we proceed with
anything.

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com


from_name: Klaus Hartlage

body:
Hello

I started to write a Wikipedia Eclipse Editor Plugin and would like to know,
if there is a XMLRPC or SOAP interface (in the future) to read/update
Wikipedia articles.
If yes, is there alread a Java API available?
If no, is it possible to update multiple wikitexts through the HTTP forms
(with the httpclient.jar API) or is this regarded as spamming?

--
--
http://www.eclipseproject.de *** http://www.phpeclipse.de ***

NEU +++ DSL Komplett von GMX +++ http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
GMX DSL-Netzanschluss + Tarif zum superg?nstigen Komplett-Preis!


body:
Zoney wrote

>I feel there
> are many ways that content can be kept more organised / reviewed, and
> there's ample prospects of getting past any problems we have. But they
> shouldn't be ignored.

Well, sure, on the points you raise, piecemeal addition causes a need for
'master edits'/refactoring. General growth means main articles have to spin
out subarticles. 'Be bold' is still in force, though, and people with the
basic editing chops should edit where they see the need.

 This is not so much about reliability as continued 'activism' and the
motivations to do more than just nibble at the edges.

Charles


from_name: steven l. rubenstein

subject:
[WikiEN-l] About the reliability of the Wikipedia process and
 content

body:
I have been preoccupied with other things and have not followed the
list-serve closely, so I apologize if I am missing something (and would
love it if someone would bring me up to speed).  But I recently signed onto
a "Forum for Encyclopedic Standards" project, and now see people discussing
peer-review.   I'd like to point out that "peer-review" can take many
different forms, and in fact has had different effects.

The form I am most familiar with is an article is sent to two to five
reviewers who comment on and evaluate it, and the editor of a journal makes
recommendations.  In some cases, the reviewers put considerable time and
effort into commenting -- the result is something far beyond the casual
hashing out of ideas at a bar or cafe.  In many of these cases I know I
have benefited considerably and my article is ultimately much, much better
for it.  In other cases, reviewers put little time into the job and often
grind their ax (as some have pointed out) or just insist that the article
under review cite ten more people (surely, friends of the reviewer).  In
such cases the result is that those articles that are published are often
mediocre, conform to some current fad, and all sound alike.

But surely, peer review means nothing more than making our words
accountable to the judgement of our peers.  Broadly put, isn't this what
Wikipedia is all about, and haven't we been doing this all along?

I agree that there is an issue of concern here.  I am currently involved in
an edit war with a couple of users and at the heart of it, I think they
have done no research or very sloppy research.  I have read too many
articles where it seems that the primary contributors relied on their
memories of what they learned ten years ago in a college class, or what
they have picked up on other web-sites (and frankly, I think the
information available on the web is mostly mediocre).  How do we deal with
this?

Given my own commitments to Wikipedia, I am absolutely against a panel of
people who are charged with approving or vetoing articles or edits.

I have two suggestions.  First, I think that we already have established
values that address some of the problems I and others are concerned
with.  I am referring specifically to the prohibition on original research,
and the call for verifiability.  Most of the edit wars I have been involved
with have involved either NPOV or one of these two values.  Frankly, I
think that the Wikipedia community as a whole has focused too much on NPOV
at the exclusion of these two other values.  I do not mean this to be a
criticism.  I have seen considerable (and necessary, useful) debate over
the past few years on what, exactly, NPOV is -- debate on talk pages,
meta-Wikipedia, and on this listserve.  I think the community as a whole
has developed a pretty sophisticated idea of NPOV and how it can be
achieved.  I think most veterans are very sensitive about this, and do a
pretty good job of policing articles for violations of NPOV, and educating
newbies.  I just think we haven't done as good a job with
"verifiability."  I think the explanation we have on the verifiability page
is very good -- but I am talking about the culture of the place. I think it
is time for people actively to look for opportunities -- on article talk
pages, personal pages, and here -- to talk about "verifiability;" how do
you recognize that an article is verifiable; what are the warning signs
that it may not be; how to go about making it more encyclopedic.  I think
the culture of Wikipedia is strong and when directed in a thoughtful way, a
powerful tool.  I think if the majority of us just started to pay more
attention to this issue on pages, and through debate and dialogue started
evolving a more practical way to explain it to newbies and show people how
to make articles more verifiable, we will not need a panel empowered to
veto articles.

My second suggestion is to try to find a way to appropriate the one good
thing I have found in peer-review -- when a few scholars who really are
experts in a topic give considerable attention to one person's work, and
give them focused feedback.  NOTE, the purpose is not to give a stamp of
approval or to veto the work, the purpose is to engage the work on a very
high level, to call attention to the elements of the work that can be
developed, and to suggest alternatives.  I am trying to imagine a process
that is more intense than what usually happens on a talk page.  What I
suggest is that there be a directory of editors grouped by expertise on
major topics (biology, art, US history, etc).  When it is clear that one
editor is writing a new article or substantially rewriting or adding to an
existing article, members of one of these panels can review the changes as
a whole with an eye towards making constructive suggestions and educating
the new editor in Wikipedia values.  There need be no threat of veto or
sanction power -- I think if three veterans reviewed an article of mine and
told me "look, deal with our criticisms now, and address these issues, or
sometime over the next year other wikipedians will spot these problems and
delete or change your work at will," it will be strong enough incentive.

These two ideas are off the top of my head and I am sure that even if you
like them they need much more refinement.  I hope there are enough other
people out there who get what I am suggesting, and are willing to improve
on the ideas!

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701


body:
Lars Alvik:

>> "1" is unfair to nynorsk and politically very explosive.
>
> Bokm?l is, unlike nynorsk, can accualy be called a national language,
> with 90% of the population speaking/writting in it.

I wish you would stop citing relative size as if it were an argument
which entitles
the *bigger* of the two languages to special treatment (such as the right to
call itself "the" Norwegian language).

> You should perhaps look at Lars Aronsens mail:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-November/035836.html
> its a clear and unbiased view on the conflict.

I have read it (and all other contributions to this discussion).
Aronsen does indeed
state that "There is an oppression component here, where the mere number of
people who prefer Bokm?l creates a problem for the brave Nynorsk minority."
He does not use the number 90%, but rather 85% (which is probably pretty
close to being accurate).  Remember, there are also Norwegian people without
any preference, who can write with equal ease in both languages.

The only numerical statistics I know about concerning the size of bokm?l
vs. nynorsk, I found at a pro-nynorsk web site: http://www.nm.no/english.cfm
It claims that 640 000 Norwegians (14%) use nynorsk as their primary
written language.  The no: Wikipedia puts the number at 10%-12%.  But
even if it were just 1%, nynorsk would still deserve fair (meaning equal)
treatment.  At any rate, it is small enough for its users to scream "oppression"
when the larger bokm?l community carelessly ignores nynorsk's rights.

I do not wish to be part of conscious oppression of a minority language.

Ulf Lunde


subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:3RR

body:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 06:02:51PM -0800, Mark Richards wrote:
> So you think that in science pages, for example, space
> should be given to different theories based on their
> relative popularity? This will wreak havock on
> evolution, not to mention gravity!
> Are you really serious?
> Mark

I'm not discussing what I think should be done, I'm discussing what I
believe current policy to specify. I believe creationism has no place at
all in an article on science. That's neither here nor there though.

Shane.


from_name: csherlock at ljh.com.au

body:
I highly recommend everyone assist me with my efforts to win this
competition - delete to keep!

[[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Extreme article deletion]]

Ta bu shi da yu


from_name: Stephen Forrest

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] About the reliability of the
	Wikipedia process and content

body:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:21:42 +1100, David Gerard
<fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:

[snip]
> While reviewing content sounds like a good ide (to me too), there should be
> a way to do it wihtout seeming to repudiate the concept of the wiki. I'm
> not actually wedded to the idea myself, but repudiating it as you describe
> would be extremely jarring culturally and - and this is the important point
> - demotivating for the volunteers.

How about a system wherein a 'reviewer' (some kind of privileged user)
or review board has the right to stamp an 'approved' label on a
particular revision of a given Wikipedia article?

After being 'reviewed', the article itself could be freely revised and
altered just like any other article, but the 'approved' label would
only refer to the past revision which was approved, and the label
would not carry forward to a new revision until it was 're-approved'.

Obviously the set of 'approved articles' will be much smaller and much
more out-of-date than the rest of Wikipedia, but the idea is that a
casual reader can place greater trust in their correctness and quality
than he/she can in a typical Wikipedia article.  We could even, if
desired, create a fork consisting of only 'approved' articles which
could be used for people very concerned with correctness and quality.
(Maybe a 'fork' is the wrong word, since it would not be a one-time
move; it would simply be a different view into the usual Wikipedia.)

For example, a teacher may not feel comfortable pointing a student to
Wikipedia knowing there is a possibility, however remote, that when
the student accesses the article 'Jew' she will find a random
antisemitic rant or just wrong information.   Even though we all know
such a rant would be immediately removed (as they have been before)
there is still some damage done here, and the potential for this
probably deters people from endorsing Wikipedia's use.  The
approval-based Wikipedia 'fork' would suffer from limited and dated
content, but would at least not have this problem, and could be
'safely' recommended.

The danger with a system is that we could create the impression that
an article must be 'approved' to be believable; however, I think this
could be overcome by using the same arguments we use now, about the
collaborative process working most of the time.

Steve


from_name: Roy

subject: [Wikitech-l] Go button for new pages

body:
The manual states: another way is to perform a search (as you should
have done before) with the Go button and coming up with nothing,
pressing "create the article".

When I click on GO to create a new page I don't see the link "create the
article". How can I enable it?


from_name: Tim Starling

body:
Mark Richards wrote:
> I very much hope this does not happen. Setting up
> 'expert reviews' would be the death of the project.
> Mark

Maybe it should be the death of another project instead. That's what I
suggested at:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Authority_metric

-- Tim Starling