subject: [WikiEN-l] Hate Speech defined

body:
Part of the definition is making a false generalization, "Blue-eyed devils"
can serve as an example. This stands for the proposition that all White
people are active evil-doers. True enough in the case of isolated
individuals, sometimes true of pretty good size mobs, even entire
nation-states, but considered seriously, false and resulint in incitment.
Intention is another part of a reasonable definition as an aggravating
factor. Hate-speech is intended to produce action, or at least change in
behavior, perhaps from tolerance to rejection.

Some problems exist with that definition, for example as Bush or Kerry
campaign both attempt false generalizations intended to produce change in
behavior. So it is also a matter of degree, a change in voting being at one
extreme, the holocaust the other, thus addition of the qualifier "extreme".

So hate speech is a false generalization about an ethnic group, religious or
political orientation or other identifiable group which tends to produce a
change in behavior that is extremely unfavorable to that group. Calculated
intention is an aggravation of the offense but not necessary.

Fred

> From: David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 16:04:09 +0000
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] in the last year hatespeech seems to have
> become    acceptable
>
> On 07/04/04 15:02, Robert wrote:
>
>> It doesn't matter if the hatespeech is towards Jews,
>> blacks, homosexuals, Muslims, or anyone else. It has no
>> place in an encyclopedia project, let alone in a society
>> where we claim to respect human life.
>
>
> Define "hate speech". With a definition that is likely to
> achieve consensus agreement. A consensus definition is an
> absolute minimum requirement for what you're asking for.
>
>
> - d.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
It's interesting that there is, on this list, at least, a lot of doubt. But
in Rwanda, clearly, the mob was being egged on. And, of course, Hitler was
the master at it.

Fred

> From: "Charles Matthews" <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 17:39:07 +0100
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Mass murder results from exhortation
>
>> Even
>> cold-blooded killers need a systematic and authoritative guide to action.
>>
>> Fred
>
> Yes, see Rwanda if there is any doubt.
>
> Charles
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
NPOV never covered false statements such as Wheeler made about the Jewish
concentration camps of the Gulag. If you think it did you were mistaken.
Such a statement would be acceptable only in the context of identifying it
as an anti-semitic statement.

Fred

> From: David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 18:39:09 +0000
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Mass murder results from exhortation
>
> To attempt Godwin's Law in reverse: does this proposed "hate speech"
> policy involve an alteration of the Wikipedia NPOV policy to any
> degree? Particularly on this issue.


body:
Sysops are expected, more than other users, to conform to Wikipedia policy
and can indeed be sanctioned for failures to do so as part of the dispute
resolution procedure. Which I suggest you follow rather than flogging the
mailing list.

Fred

From: "C A S [name omitted for privacy reasons]" <a[name omitted for privacy reasons]@msn.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 14:28:38 -0500
To: <wikiEN-l at wikipedia.org>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Sysop Accountability (Yes or No?)

Should Sysops be held to the rule of law? Should Sysops be required to
respect due process? Should they be required to understand the burden of
proof, and agree with the concept of "innocent until proven guilty?" Should
sysops face administrative discipline, when they break the rules governing
their action?

For instance, should sysops face justice when they ban a user who hasn't
been creating clear and obvious vandalism; in a situation where consensus
cannot be found for the banning, where a quick poll has not been successful,
where neither the arbitration committee nor Jimbo Wales has supported the
ban...should such sysops be admonished, or should they feel free to continue
with their vigilantism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sysop_Accountability_Policy

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040704/d9e21cfd/attachment.htm


body:
Most of use are aware of RK's overreaction to various matters. His
idiosyncratic behavior gives no one else license to engage in anti-semitism.
He can be predicted to go overboard on this too, but that should not stand
in the way of a sound, conservative policy which sanctions hate speech.

Fred

> From: David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 20:14:51 +0000
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Mass murder results from exhortation
>
> I wouldn't have thought so. I'd like to hear RK's opinion on the topic in
> general before feeling my qualms are addressed. He already considers page
> protection evidence of anti-Semitism.


list: wikipedia-l

from_email: a

subject: [Wikipedia-l] thank you

body:
Id like to thank you, as members of the Wikimedia Board, as members of the mediation committee, and as concerned citizens -- for being so rude as to not even bother to respond to this issue. It is obvious that you feel I can be banned by anyone, for any reason; regardless of Jimbo Wales request that I be treated according to the rules of the website. Thank you for not caring, it means a lot to me.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: C A S [name omitted for privacy reasons]<mailto:a[name omitted for privacy reasons]@msn.com>
  To: Anthere<mailto:anthere9 at yahoo.com>
  Cc: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org<mailto:wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org> ; wikipedia-en at wikipedia.org<mailto:wikipedia-en at wikipedia.org> ; Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com<mailto:Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> ; chris_mahan at yahoo.com<mailto:chris_mahan at yahoo.com>
  Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 1:27 PM
  Subject: Hephaestos must be desysoped

  Since no effort was made to address my previous ban, in which Guanaco banned me because he felt that I was User:Yuna (despite having no evidence to support his claim) -- now, I have been banned again, for an even less reasonable reason. Such is the slippery slope, no? Hephaestos has now banned me. without giving any reason, except that I have "admitted to trolling" -- whatever that could mean. The ban is for 30 days.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040704/22bdf1a8/attachment.htm


from_name: C A S [name omitted for privacy reasons]

subject: [WikiEN-l] Sysop Accountability (Yes or No?)

body:
Should Sysops be held to the rule of law? Should Sysops be required to respect due process? Should they be required to understand the burden of proof, and agree with the concept of "innocent until proven guilty?" Should sysops face administrative discipline, when they break the rules governing their action?

For instance, should sysops face justice when they ban a user who hasn't been creating clear and obvious vandalism; in a situation where consensus cannot be found for the banning, where a quick poll has not been successful, where neither the arbitration committee nor Jimbo Wales has supported the ban...should such sysops be admonished, or should they feel free to continue with their vigilantism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sysop_Accountability_Policy<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sysop_Accountability_Policy>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040704/3795b24f/attachment.htm


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Ray's anti-Semitic violent attacks on the Jews for
	not	forgiving Nazis

body:
Robert, with friends like you, the Jews don't need enemies.

Those whom I have met through Wikipedia, and whom I recognize to be Jews
have with only one single exception approched this class of topics with
remarkable discretion and sensitivity.

Robert wrote:

>Ray's attacks on the Jews for not forgiving Nazis is not
>only off-topic, but outrageously hateful. Without any
>exagerration, his argument comes directly from Neo-Nazi
>websites. This is no joke. Please look at the many Nazi
>websites on the Internet; they have precisely the same
>argument Ray uses here.
>
>Every mainstream Jewish organization has condemned this
>specific argument as anti-Semitism.
>
I don't spend time on Neo-Nazi websites so I am not as familiar as
Robert with their tactics.  I must believe him if he says that they use
the same argument.

I'm sure that those sites say a lot of other far more hateful things.
There is something fundamentally illogical in the argument that if an
evil organization employs one argument in the pursuit of its goals, than
anyone else who uses it must also be evil.  I think that this is a case
of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc."

Forgiveness is about healing the victim, much more than about liberating
the criminal.  A feeling of hatred and a lust for revenge causes far
more agony and sleepless nights for the person who feels them than for
the object of those feelings.

>Ray writes:
>
>
>>but militant Jewish organizations continue to insist
>>that the matter be continued in the criminal justice
>>system.
>>
>>
>As opposed to gentiles, who don't enforce the laws of their
>nations? In what country? On what planet?
>
You are putting the letter of the law above the spirit of the law.  I am
suspicious of what people mean when they say "I want these criminals
brought to justice."  More often they're after revenge.

>>These very vocal and very public organizations manage
>>to promote a public image of Jews as completely
>>insensitive and unforgiving.
>>
>>
>This is classical Chrisitian anti-Semitism, and has been
>used for over 2,000 years to explain why all Jews will burn
>in hell. It also paints the victim as evil for the "sin" of
>asking that justice be served.
>
Is it really anti-semitism to be severely critical of those minority
elements in the Jewish community who bring the whole community into
disrepute.  I have not introduced the issue of Jews burning in hell; you
have.  If the bulk of Jews allowed themselves to identify with the
compulsively masochistic victimization that you propose their lot would
be far more difficult than it is now.  If I could ever bring myself to
believe in Christian fairy stories, I'm sure that the judgement that
results in anyone being condemned to hell would not be left in the hands
of the believers.

>>The same can be said of the Nazi hunters who continue to
>>seek punishment on old men 60 years after the fact,
>>often at great expense.
>>
>>
>There is no time-limit on mass murder and genocide. Members
>of my own family were exterminated by the Germans. Why
>should people be allowed to get away with rape, slavery and
>murder, just because they were lucky enough to evade the
>legal authorities at the time? That is a highly immoral
>position.
>
So what difference does it make that members of your own family were
among the exterminated?  If 10 happened to be members of your family,
how different is their situation from that of the other 5,999,990?  How
does it earn you a spot at the top of the heap?

Perhaps my sense of justice is different from yours. It is not based on
a need for revenge or punishment, but on integrating these perpetrators
back into normal life, and perhaps having them contribute within their
individual capacity to the improvement of the lot of others.  Ann Frank
did not become a role model by hating the Nazis.  The Truth and
Reconciliation process in post-apartheid South Africa is far superior to
an endless series of war-crime tribunals.

>>There comes a time when these events need to be put
>>behind us so that everyone can go on with life.
>>
>>
>So it would be Ok, if someone here raped and murdered your
>mother, raped and killed your sister, and killed your
>father and son, and burnt all their bodies in an oven? And
>then did this to most of your extended family? You'd
>actually argue in public that someone who did such a thing
>should be allowed to get away with it, if they evaded the
>authorities at the time and lived as a free man until he
>was 60?
>
I don't need to personalize the question by speculating how things would
be if my relatives were the victims.

Sixty years after the fact the stragglers are much older than sixty.
Most of them left the Nazi lifestyle shortly after the war, and likely
went on to get married, have children, and otherwise live normal
productive lives.  That's perhaps the most that we can demand out of
justice.  Continued persecution also affects the liives of others who
had nothing to do with the events in the camps; it just widens the
circle of hatred.  The ones that are left were among the youngest at the
time; their education was gained in the Nazi era when an alternative
morality might not have been available.  The young prison guards were as
much victims of their circumstances as the people whom they helped to
kill.  It's all part of the military mentality, which recent events at
Abu Ghraib have proven to be still alive and well.

>If so, then you are a sick man who needs mental
>help, immediately. If not, then you have an anti-Semitic
>double standard.
>
It's hard to respond when you have so clearly run out of coherent arguments.

>I am disgusted at this pro-Nazi, openly anti-Semitic
>vitriol. I am just wondering if anyone here will have the
>guts to oppose this violent hatespeech.
>
If Dante had been Jewish he would have found you a proper spot in Gehenna.

I am well aware of and support the distinction that Steven made between
personal attacks and hate speech.  If in this I have inadvertently
stepped into the latter, I trust that the majority will accept my
apologies for such errors.

Ray


from_name: Robert

subject: [WikiEN-l] Some thoughts after some time out

body:
>> NPOV never covered false statements such as Wheeler
>> made about the Jewish concentration camps of the Gulag.
>> If you think it did you were mistaken. Such a statement
>> would be acceptable only in the context of identifying
>> it as an anti-semitic statement.

> I wouldn't have thought so. I'd like to hear RK's
> opinion on the topic in general before feeling my
> qualms are addressed. He already considers page
> protection evidence of anti-Semitism.

Who in the blazes told you that?!  I've got news for you:
Pages are protected on Wikipedia all the time. I never
called suchprotection racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic,
anti-American, or anything else. What you have beem told
about me has been exagerrated to the point of caricature.
Why? Because some people want to avoid the issue on the
rare articles (out of over 100,000) when they do arise.

If some people added anti-American propaganda and rhetoric
to an article, and then protected the page, then that
specific set of actions would be anti-American agitation,
and it should be condemned as such. Similarly, if some
people added anti-Jewish or anti-gay propaganda and
rhetoric, and then protected the page, then that specific
set of actions would be anti-Semitic or homophobic
agitation, and it should be condemned as such. Note that
this line of thought has been echoed by others (not just
me) and that it bears no resemblance to what you think I
believe.

By the way, I have over 300 articles on my "Watchlist", and
I have seen many of these articles get protected. I also
have seen some rather large flame wars on many of them,
most of which I have chosen to ignore. In recent months,
how many of times did I see someone do something
anti-Jewish within an article?  One article...out of *three
hundred*.  (Wheeler's attacks were in a Talk page.)

Heck, although I look at many of these 300 "Watch"
articles, I just took a couple of months off from Wikipedia
because (a) I had time-consuimg outside concerns (good
things, mostly) and (b) I didn't have the energy or desire
to get involved in flame wars. Wikipedia could probably
cool down a bit if others took off for a week or a month
every now and then. I've done it before, I'll do it again;
I can even reccomend it. Heck, people who can't take time
off are too tightly wound up in this project (like...Mr
Natural Health.)

Robert

=====
"No one is poor except he who lacks knowledge....A person who has knowledge has everything.  A person who lacks knowledge, what has he? Once a person acquires knowledge, what does he lack?  [Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim, 41a]

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


from_name: steven l. rubenstein

subject: [WikiEN-l] WHEELER's anti-Semitism

body:
Chris Mahan recently wrote:

>The reason why I say that hate speech is not destructive is that
>speech itself is strictly communicative.

which begs the question, what do you mean by "communicative?"  I assume you
mean that the only thing it does is to describe or express something else,
but has not force in and of itself.  If this is what CM means, he is
mistaken.  Some propositions are indeed expressive or descriptive (e.g., "I
feel sick" or "the house is blue" -- in the first case the proposition
describes how I feel, in the second case it describes the house.  In both
cases the proposition is about something else).  But some propositions are
performative -- statements which are in and of themselves actions.  J.L.
Austin provides some pretty common examples: when someone says "I name this
ship The Queen Elizabeth" it is the very pronouncement that accomplishes
the naming.  Similarly, when one says "I bet you ..." it is the act of
saying so that constitutes the bet.  Or when someone says "I promise," it
is the very act of speaking that accomplishes the promise.  You can call
these statements "communicative" if you like -- what is important is a
major distinction between these kinds of statements and statements like
"the house is blue."

The question is, what kind of proposition is "Jewish concentration camps"
(meaning, concentration camps run by Jews) I think the answer is, both.  It
is a descriptive statement that can be either true or false (and in the
case of the camps WHEELER was referring too, false).  But I believe it is
also a performative statement, and it is in this sense that it is hate
speech, and destructive.

Some people have suggested that what makes it hate speech is its potential
to incite physical violence.  I think this is valid (and a valid legal
principle: threatening someone may be punishable, at least in the U.S., or
may not -- courts decide in part from weighing how likely the threat could
lead to physical violence).  But the argument of "hate speech" is that
performative statements are in and of themselves violent.  One example is
the power of speech to intimidate (and although threats may be purely
verbal, they can still be actionable for this reason).  This was
established in the United States by the 1942 Supreme Court decision
Chaplinsky versus New Hampshire, which is the basis for some hate speech
legislation in the U.S. (and available on the web).  Another is the power
of speech to stigmatize (this is in effect the argument MacKinnon and
Dworkin made against pornography -- the very act renders women sexual objects).

The ACLU opposes hate speech legislation on two grounds: first, it
considers hate speech one of the prices a society must pay for a general
right to freedom of speech, and second, it believes the best response to
hate speech is more speech.  I happen to sympathize very strongly, or just
plain agree, with both of these.  I do not think the state should limit
free speech.  WHEELER, for example, has a right to say whatever
anti-Semitic thing he wants to, to anyone who wants to listen.

The question is, do I have to listen?  Do you, do we have to listen?  And,
more importantly, does Wikipedia have to be a medium through which anyone
spews hate speech?  I don't think so.

And I think that anyone who construes this argument against hate speech on
Wikipedia as censorship is seriously distorting the situation.  Wikipedia
is a community, not the state.  Just because a person has a legal right to
do something does not mean we are obliged to collude.  For example, people
have a right to advertise but we do not allow advertisements on
Wikipedia.  Advertisements do not benefit our project, and only mislead
people as to the nature of our project.  The same goes for hate speech. If
I thought it were possible that hate speech on Wikipedia could lead to the
improvement of an article, for example, I would defend it.  But I don't
think it leads to the improvement of articles, and only appropriates our
space to hateful purposes.

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040704/3c3845a0/attachment.htm
-------------- next part --------------

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.690 / Virus Database: 451 - Release Date: 5/22/2004


from_name: David Gerard

subject:
[WikiEN-l] in the last year hatespeech seems to have
	become	acceptable

body:
On 07/04/04 15:02, Robert wrote:

> It doesn't matter if the hatespeech is towards Jews,
> blacks, homosexuals, Muslims, or anyone else. It has no
> place in an encyclopedia project, let alone in a society
> where we claim to respect human life.

Define "hate speech". With a definition that is likely to
achieve consensus agreement. A consensus definition is an
absolute minimum requirement for what you're asking for.

- d.


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki vacation

body:
I've got to catch up on work and other (non-PHP!) projects, so I'm not
going to be real active on MediaWiki and Wikipedia stuff for a while.

Please direct requests for upgrades etc to other people if possible.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040704/8923893a/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Mass murder results from exhortation

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:

>Most of use are aware of RK's overreaction to various matters. His
>idiosyncratic behavior gives no one else license to engage in anti-semitism. He can be predicted to go overboard on this too, but that should not stand in the way of a sound, conservative policy which sanctions hate speech.
>
This is a pet peeve of mine, but there is a world of difference between
a policy that sanctions hate speech, and a policy that imposes sanctions
against hate speech. I don't know if you will succeed in getting the
latter, but if we had the former then many of RK's posts would not be an
overreaction at all.

To sanction can mean to authorize or approve; it can also mean to
penalize. In order to clarify which meaning is intended, one must
provide the appropriate context when using the word.

--Michael Snow


subject: [WikiEN-l] Hate Speech defined

body:
On 07/04/04 16:21, Fred Bauder wrote:

> So hate speech is a false generalization about an ethnic group, religious or
> political orientation or other identifiable group which tends to produce a
> change in behavior that is extremely unfavorable to that group. Calculated
> intention is an aggravation of the offense but not necessary.

"which tends to produce a change in behaviour" is an ambiguity you could
drive a truck through.

This is still coming down to "I know it when I see it" and is not suitable
material for a policy. e.g. I think a lot of your opinions on left-wingers
are *wrong*, but I certainly wouldn't call them *hate speech*. But I'm
pretty sure others here would.

In dealing with the case we're actually talking about, i.e. WHEELER, what
about this case is not amenable to the current dispute resolution process?
The AC is quite slow so far, but has dealt properly so far with cases
brought against egregiously offensive users (MNH, Irismeister, Paul Vogel).

I completely fail to see why an RFM and then if necessary an RFA can't be
brought against WHEELER. Based on his obnoxiousness so far, I could write it
myself if I could be bothered. I shouldn't have to, though, because anyone
else sufficiently concerned to flood wikien-l with messages about his "hate
speech" should have the energy to proceed using the tools in place.

This is a single case. I have PROFOUND qualms about making new policy based
on a single case that should be susceptible to the tools we already have in
place.

To those who have been writing to Wikipedia advocating that WHEELER be
thrown off for his egregious offensiveness: please at least attempt using
the tools that are already to hand.

- d.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] The shrill doomsayers of Wikipedia (was: in the last
 year hatespeech seems to have become acceptable)

body:
David Gerard wrote:

> On 07/04/04 15:02, Robert wrote:
>
>> But in the last year hatespeech seems to have become
>> acceptable, and those who use it have been rewarded, while
>> victims of it are attacked. This is a sad turn of events,
>> and will cause Wikipedia's repuation to suffer terribly.
>> Already many academics I know view Wikipedia as hopeless;
>> but if this phenomenon spreads its reputation will be
>> hopelessly tarnished.
>
> This sounds like circular discussions with 142/entmoots on IRC.
> He says Wikipedia's policy direction is hopelessly flawed and he
> wants to change it to protect the 'GFDL corpus'.

Yes, it's quite ironic that two such bitter enemies as Robert Kaiser and
Craig Hubley do start to sound pretty much the same in the end.

--Michael Snow


from_name: Charles Matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Mass murder results from exhortation

body:
> Even
> cold-blooded killers need a systematic and authoritative guide to action.
>
> Fred

Yes, see Rwanda if there is any doubt.

Charles


subject:
[WikiEN-l] in the last year wanting to impose policy seems to
	have become acceptable

body:
On 07/04/04 15:02, Robert wrote:

> But in the last year hatespeech seems to have become
> acceptable, and those who use it have been rewarded, while
> victims of it are attacked. This is a sad turn of events,
> and will cause Wikipedia's repuation to suffer terribly.
> Already many academics I know view Wikipedia as hopeless;
> but if this phenomenon spreads its reputation will be
> hopelessly tarnished.

This sounds like circular discussions with 142/entmoots on IRC.
He says Wikipedia's policy direction is hopelessly flawed and he
wants to change it to protect the 'GFDL corpus'.

If you think Wikipedia is hopelessly flawed and already doomed,
why are you still here?

That question doesn't mean 'go away'. It means 'why not fork?'
The text won't be lost - that's what 'open content' means. Text
can flow back and forth.

This is not a meaningless suggestion - this is precisely what
happened to es: to form Enciclopedia-Libre. The volunteers didn't
like a floated policy and got up en masse and went elsewhere to
form a project that is still vital and going strong. Volunteer
motivation is incredibly powerful, but incredibly fragile.

RK, if you really believe Wikipedia needs the policy you advocate:
make a fork and proceed. The text will be fine. If you are right,
the volunteers will follow you. If you are wrong, they won't.

(These are probably in no way the opinions of the Wikimedia
Foundation. I think active forks may well be a good thing; I think
many others will strongly disagree ...)

This, by the way, also answers entmoot/142's arguments that
Wikipedia needs factions. No, it needs *forks*. So 142, Lir,
Plato, Mr-Natural-Health and Irismeister can work on Redpedia,
producing GFDL material their way and using anything they want
from Wikipedia. What they cannot do is force the volunteers to
want to put up with them.

The text will remain GFDL. But the volunteers are what make a
project active. will the volunteers want to work under your policies?
So far they want to work under the present ones. But if you
push through your favoured policy and they don't like it, they
*will* get up and leave.

- d.


body:
On 07/04/04 17:04, Fred Bauder wrote:

> It's interesting that there is, on this list, at least, a lot of doubt. But
> in Rwanda, clearly, the mob was being egged on. And, of course, Hitler was
> the master at it.

To attempt Godwin's Law in reverse: does this proposed "hate speech"
policy involve an alteration of the Wikipedia NPOV policy to any
degree? Particularly on this issue.

I ask because, to steal a coinage from RK, a usable 'nazipedia' would
actually be a very good thing. I've been working at length on
[[Category:Neo-Nazi topics]] for this reason: dealing with these people
requires as much active knowledge as is available.

Yet I already see people on VfD advocating deletion of articles on
small neo-Nazi groups *on the basis that* talking about them is
advertising them. Without their NPOV detectors being set off at all.

(Note that in practical Internet interaction, neo-Nazis are consistently
really, really crap at sensible argument. Amazingly so. There are plenty
of lucid Communists, but exploding neo-Nazi heads online is easy.)

I submit that this anti-"hate speech" policy proposal will become
self-broadening and threaten NPOV.

- d.


body:
On 07/04/04 19:03, Fred Bauder wrote:

>>To attempt Godwin's Law in reverse: does this proposed "hate speech"
>>policy involve an alteration of the Wikipedia NPOV policy to any
>>degree? Particularly on this issue.

> NPOV never covered false statements such as Wheeler made about the Jewish
> concentration camps of the Gulag. If you think it did you were mistaken.
> Such a statement would be acceptable only in the context of identifying it
> as an anti-semitic statement.

I wouldn't have thought so. I'd like to hear RK's opinion on the topic in
general before feeling my qualms are addressed. He already considers page
protection evidence of anti-Semitism.

- d.


body:
Fred Bauder wrote:

>Most of use are aware of RK's overreaction to various matters. His
>idiosyncratic behavior gives no one else license to engage in anti-semitism.
>He can be predicted to go overboard on this too, but that should not stand
>in the way of a sound, conservative policy which sanctions hate speech.
>
>
"Sanction" is a poorly chosen word because it has two contradictory
menings: "A threatened penalty" or "an official permission".

Ec


body:
On 07/04/04 19:35, Fred Bauder wrote:
>     *From: *"C A S [name omitted for privacy reasons]" <a[name omitted for privacy reasons]@msn.com>

>     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sysop_Accountability_Policy

 > Sysops are expected, more than other users, to conform to Wikipedia
 > policy and can indeed be sanctioned for failures to do so as part of the
 > dispute resolution procedure. Which I suggest you follow rather than
 > flogging the mailing list.

No, no. Lir has created one of the finest spaces for Wikipedia performance
art yet seen. Read the article revision by revision for great justice^W
entertainment.

I'm sure this was absolutely intentional.

- d.


body:
On 07/04/04 19:41, Fred Bauder wrote:

> Most of use are aware of RK's overreaction to various matters. His
> idiosyncratic behavior gives no one else license to engage in anti-semitism.
> He can be predicted to go overboard on this too, but that should not stand
> in the way of a sound, conservative policy which sanctions hate speech.

I still feel there's a truck-sized hole in your proposed definition. And
remember that the examples I gave of people wanting to delete articles on
neo-Nazi groups based on POV are actually happening now. This stuff leaks
all over the place.

- d.


from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: thank you

body:
Lir,

Hmmmm, I would like you to cool down and allow time
for things to proceed.

This week end, we had a meeting in Paris, so
essentially, Angela, Jimbo and I were unavailable.
Allow people to have time on their own, to meet
happily for the first time in their lives, to meet
with many of those with whom they have been sharing so
much online. Jimbo will be away for a few more days of
holidays. Angela will be off till tuesdays at least.

I think that I spent most of my last night online
trying to decipher the issue you had with Guanaco, and
the conclusion of it, was that it had been a not very
good move from Guanaco, misunderstanding from his
part, but mostly unclear policy with regards to sock
puppets. Sannse agreed to try to work with others on
this policy, so that things are clearer. I thought
this was essentially your request : that things are
clearer.

I have no idea of the last events, and frankly, right
now, really no time to look at it. I do agree that
Guanaco move last week was too quick but I also think
it really was done in *good faith*.

I suggest that you explain what happened to the
arbitration committee if you really feel that it is
important. If there is need to sign up somewhere so
that this happen, just tell me. I hope the AC will
consider your request. I am talking about what
happened with Guanaco last week, not later events I
know nothing about.

This said, I mostly hope that a clearer policy is set,
so that new sysops have clear guidelines. I know
Guanaco did not mean bad.

Thanks

-- C A S [name omitted for privacy reasons] <a[name omitted for privacy reasons]@msn.com> wrote:
> Id like to thank you, as members of the Wikimedia
> Board, as members of the mediation committee, and as
> concerned citizens -- for being so rude as to not
> even bother to respond to this issue. It is obvious
> that you feel I can be banned by anyone, for any
> reason; regardless of Jimbo Wales request that I be
> treated according to the rules of the website. Thank
> you for not caring, it means a lot to me.
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: C A S [name omitted for privacy reasons]<mailto:a[name omitted for privacy reasons]@msn.com>
>   To: Anthere<mailto:anthere9 at yahoo.com>
>   Cc:
>
wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org<mailto:wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org>
> ;
>
wikipedia-en at wikipedia.org<mailto:wikipedia-en at wikipedia.org>
> ;
> Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com<mailto:Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
> ;
> chris_mahan at yahoo.com<mailto:chris_mahan at yahoo.com>
>   Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 1:27 PM
>   Subject: Hephaestos must be desysoped
>
>
>   Since no effort was made to address my previous
> ban, in which Guanaco banned me because he felt that
> I was User:Yuna (despite having no evidence to
> support his claim) -- now, I have been banned again,
> for an even less reasonable reason. Such is the
> slippery slope, no? Hephaestos has now banned me.
> without giving any reason, except that I have
> "admitted to trolling" -- whatever that could mean.
> The ban is for 30 days.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: thank you

body:
Lir,

Hmmmm, I would like you to cool down and allow time
for things to proceed.

This week end, we had a meeting in Paris, so
essentially, Angela, Jimbo and I were unavailable.
Allow people to have time on their own, to meet
happily for the first time in their lives, to meet
with many of those with whom they have been sharing so
much online. Jimbo will be away for a few more days of
holidays. Angela will be off till tuesdays at least.

I think that I spent most of my last night online
trying to decipher the issue you had with Guanaco, and
the conclusion of it, was that it had been a not very
good move from Guanaco, misunderstanding from his
part, but mostly unclear policy with regards to sock
puppets. Sannse agreed to try to work with others on
this policy, so that things are clearer. I thought
this was essentially your request : that things are
clearer.

I have no idea of the last events, and frankly, right
now, really no time to look at it. I do agree that
Guanaco move last week was too quick but I also think
it really was done in *good faith*.

I suggest that you explain what happened to the
arbitration committee if you really feel that it is
important. If there is need to sign up somewhere so
that this happen, just tell me. I hope the AC will
consider your request. I am talking about what
happened with Guanaco last week, not later events I
know nothing about.

This said, I mostly hope that a clearer policy is set,
so that new sysops have clear guidelines. I know
Guanaco did not mean bad.

Thanks

-- C A S [name omitted for privacy reasons] <a[name omitted for privacy reasons]@msn.com> wrote:
> Id like to thank you, as members of the Wikimedia
> Board, as members of the mediation committee, and as
> concerned citizens -- for being so rude as to not
> even bother to respond to this issue. It is obvious
> that you feel I can be banned by anyone, for any
> reason; regardless of Jimbo Wales request that I be
> treated according to the rules of the website. Thank
> you for not caring, it means a lot to me.
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: C A S [name omitted for privacy reasons]<mailto:a[name omitted for privacy reasons]@msn.com>
>   To: Anthere<mailto:anthere9 at yahoo.com>
>   Cc:
>
wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org<mailto:wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org>
> ;
>
wikipedia-en at wikipedia.org<mailto:wikipedia-en at wikipedia.org>
> ;
> Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com<mailto:Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
> ;
> chris_mahan at yahoo.com<mailto:chris_mahan at yahoo.com>
>   Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 1:27 PM
>   Subject: Hephaestos must be desysoped
>
>
>   Since no effort was made to address my previous
> ban, in which Guanaco banned me because he felt that
> I was User:Yuna (despite having no evidence to
> support his claim) -- now, I have been banned again,
> for an even less reasonable reason. Such is the
> slippery slope, no? Hephaestos has now banned me.
> without giving any reason, except that I have
> "admitted to trolling" -- whatever that could mean.
> The ban is for 30 days.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


body:
On 07/04/04 21:47, Robert wrote:

>>>NPOV never covered false statements such as Wheeler
>>>made about the Jewish concentration camps of the Gulag.
>>>If you think it did you were mistaken. Such a statement
>>>would be acceptable only in the context of identifying
>>>it as an anti-semitic statement.

>>I wouldn't have thought so. I'd like to hear RK's
>>opinion on the topic in general before feeling my
>>qualms are addressed. He already considers page
>>protection evidence of anti-Semitism.

> Who in the blazes told you that?!

You did:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-June/013507.html

To quote you:

"Anthere has now clearly overstepped her authority. She has
picked one version of an article which deleted and censored
all info which did not agree with her her anti-Zionist
views, and then she protected the page. This is outrageous
behaviour from a Sysop."

Anthere's reply:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-June/013524.html

View from a third party on what actually happened:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-June/013522.html

That was three weeks ago, of course, so you can hardly be expected
to remember it.

BTW, I agree with a lot of your views (though not all), but think
you're a terrible advocate of them.

- d.


from_name: Eric B. Rakim

subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 12, Issue 10

body:
I mean like it is hard to see where the line is. In most schools, the pupils
are forbidden from wearing the swastika. Which is good. Then in some schools
the pupils are forbidden from wearing the red star or the Soviet symbol..
The hammer and the other thing. Which is less good. Then in some schools
pupils may not display any political or religious symbols at all because
some might consider some of them hatespeech. Which totally suck. I think
that's why people are very afraid of any proposal that might limit free
speak.

>This is kind of muddy syntax but no, having met a communist or two, I can
>say that "murderous" does not definitively define them however baleful the
>historical record. Dumb and Dumber, maybe.
>
>Fred
>
> > From: "Eric B. Rakim" <eric_b_and_rakim at hotmail.com>
> > Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 03:11:48 +0000
> > To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> > Subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: WHEELER's anti-semitism
> >
> > Meaning communists also have to right to complain against WHEELER's hate
>for
> > communists meaning that since its not OK to call jews murderous
>(ofcourse
> > it's not!) it's not OK to call communists murderous?
> >
> > We're OK with that...

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: thank you

body:
Lir,

I think that unfortunately, whatever the rules you might breach or not breach, and whatever Jimbo wish that you be plainly welcome back as a member with full editing rights, it is unfortunately a fact that many members of the english wikipedia are not happy with you being a participant. And admittedly, your attitude just does not help convince them that the benefits you are bringing Wikipedia balance the drawbacks. It might help that you adopt a more positive stance, perhaps not always criticizing so much volunteers for being either too quick or too slow, or too rude or too polite, or too bold or not daring enough. May I suggest that if you want to be treated in an appropriate manner, you might perhaps think carefully about what is appropriate and what is not.

Your issue has everything to do with sockpuppets, as Guanaco thought you were these sockpuppets (perhaps guidelines indicating how the community decides that this one is a sock puppet or is not...though we know nothing can really be proved), and as Guanaco also thought sockpuppets were illegal (so perhaps guidelines indicating what is illegal for a sock puppet to do, and what is legal would be good).

Policies such as this one should be designed at community level. This is *not* the board job to do so *at all*. There must be a discussion on the wiki itself, with wikipedians, and I guess Sannse can help on this. Or whoever feels that sock puppet management has become a very painful matter now. Also, both Sannse and Ed are members of the MC, and Ed proposed to help you. This was your choice not to accept the proposal.

I will add perhaps boldly that, regardless to rules and policies, belonging to a community is essentially being "accepted" by it, with defaults and qualities. It is more a feeling, a perception. But qualities should always compensate defaults. Most of the time, there is no need of crossing the name of a person on the membership list. Banning is really the final indication that a community reject someone, and has to do so officially, but before that happens, a few signs are meaningful and may indicate to a "member" that he might consider just moving on.

C A S [name omitted for privacy reasons] <a[name omitted for privacy reasons]@msn.com> wrote:
*would like you to cool down and allow time for things to proceed.
**As if, you've had months and months to lift your fingers -- you never intend to do anything.

*This week end, we had a meeting in Paris, so essentially, Angela, Jimbo and I were unavailable.
**If you are too busy, resign from the board/mediation committee and let someone else do the job.

*Was that it had been a not very good move from Guanaco, misunderstanding from his part, but mostly unclear policy with regards to sock puppets.
**It has nothing to do with sock puppets; no evidence has been shown that Yuna or YES was a sockpuppet of mine. Regardless of the rules regarding sockpuppets, I don't have one!

*Sannse agreed to try to work with others on this policy, so that things are clearer. I thought this was essentially your request
**I don't want "Sannse" working with others -- I want the Wikimedia board to get off its ass and start demanding sysops treating regular users in an appropriate manner.

*I have no idea of the last events, and frankly, right now, really no time to look at it.
**Resign Anthere, resign -- nothing is getting done because you don't have time, and nobody else can do it because you are hogging too many important positions.

*I suggest that you explain what happened to the arbitration committee if you really feel that it is important.
**The Arbitration Committee refuses to speak with me.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040705/bf79a70c/attachment.htm


list: foundation-l

subject: [Foundation-l] CFO

body:
Well, it does not really need flowery comments :-)

The board is officially naming Mav as the Chief Financial Officer for
the foundation.

Welcome Mav :-)

ant/flo


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] CFO


subject: [Foundation-l] WikimediaFoundation web site

body:
Hello :-)

A new wiki website was set this morning : www.wikimedia.org.

This website will be the official site of the Wikimedia Foundation.
It is meant to contain
* Description of what the Wikimedia Foundation is (mission statement, history, board, general organisation, bylaws, other legal considerations etc...)
* Information about the Foundation activity (such as board meeting report, agenda, budget, financial statements etc...)
* Membership information (and in particular due system)
* Donation system
* Information on local chapters (the extent of it needs to be decided with the chapters themselves)
* General information which will be easily available for press or any organisation or fundraising etc... : such as a condensed dozen pages, recalling history of wikimedia projects, short description and access to all projects, basic information in terms of figures (number of hits per day, number of pages, number of contributors... graphs), links to the most relevant references, global press releases
* Relevant links for more information (for contact, mediawiki software etc...)

The site has two goals. First "internal" communication from the Foundation toward all editors (or members).
Second, "external" communication from the Foundation to any potential donator or organism contacted for grants, or more generally speaking press. And of course, hosting of the dues and donation system.

A lot of the information is not really meant to be updated frequently (such as mission statement, bylaws), or will be edited by board members or officers mostly (such as board reports, financial reports). These informations need to be protected and the site will be low editing traffic since a good part of it will be static most of the time. Basically, the rule of thumb is that *any* information included in that website is approved by the board. For these reasons, access will be restricted to a limited number of editors. Currently me only :-) Cough. I'll fix accounts for Angela, Jimbo, Mav and one developer, as soon as I find time. We'll see for details later on.

Note : the *current* wikimedia web site is a mix of
* html pages which are editable directly on meta, but are in html format on a wiki page. Though the concept is good, these pages are not very easily editable (that is okay for a couple of pages, but not really for dozens). Some of them are currently protected (for example bank statements are protected and already edited by Mav only).
* pages which are available only by developers (any update of these pages require help from a developer, not for security reasons I understood, but just because wiki synthax does not always handle html synthax well). This is not very practical, and should be avoided if possible.

Hence the suggestion by Jimbo to set up a wiki, which was done this morning.

Now, obviously, some of the future pages on the website require input of many contributors. So most of these pages will be available on meta (actually, they will be started on meta), and they will be updated from time to time. I guess we will mostly begin with direct links.

Last point : we wish that this website be international because the Foundation is meant to exist  for all contributors whatever their language, and because it is meant to become a quick, relevant and accurate resource for anyone looking for information about us. I *do not think* we should aim in covering something like 150 languages or more :-) but if rather quickly we could cover half a dozen langages, it would be great.

ant

---------------------------------

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040705/46207f47/attachment.htm


body:
Hello :-)

A new wiki website was set this morning : www.wikimedia.org.

This website will be the official site of the Wikimedia Foundation.
It is meant to contain
* Description of what the Wikimedia Foundation is (mission statement, history, board, general organisation, bylaws, other legal considerations etc...)
* Information about the Foundation activity (such as board meeting report, agenda, budget, financial statements etc...)
* Membership information (and in particular due system)
* Donation system
* Information on local chapters (the extent of it needs to be decided with the chapters themselves)
* General information which will be easily available for press or any organisation or fundraising etc... : such as a condensed dozen pages, recalling history of wikimedia projects, short description and access to all projects, basic information in terms of figures (number of hits per day, number of pages, number of contributors... graphs), links to the most relevant references, global press releases
* Relevant links for more information (for contact, mediawiki software etc...)

The site has two goals. First "internal" communication from the Foundation toward all editors (or members).
Second, "external" communication from the Foundation to any potential donator or organism contacted for grants, or more generally speaking press. And of course, hosting of the dues and donation system.

A lot of the information is not really meant to be updated frequently (such as mission statement, bylaws), or will be edited by board members or officers mostly (such as board reports, financial reports). These informations need to be protected and the site will be low editing traffic since a good part of it will be static most of the time. Basically, the rule of thumb is that *any* information included in that website is approved by the board. For these reasons, access will be restricted to a limited number of editors. Currently me only :-) Cough. I'll fix accounts for Angela, Jimbo, Mav and one developer, as soon as I find time. We'll see for details later on.

Note : the *current* wikimedia web site is a mix of
* html pages which are editable directly on meta, but are in html format on a wiki page. Though the concept is good, these pages are not very easily editable (that is okay for a couple of pages, but not really for dozens). Some of them are currently protected (for example bank statements are protected and already edited by Mav only).
* pages which are available only by developers (any update of these pages require help from a developer, not for security reasons I understood, but just because wiki synthax does not always handle html synthax well). This is not very practical, and should be avoided if possible.

Hence the suggestion by Jimbo to set up a wiki, which was done this morning.

Now, obviously, some of the future pages on the website require input of many contributors. So most of these pages will be available on meta (actually, they will be started on meta), and they will be updated from time to time. I guess we will mostly begin with direct links.

Last point : we wish that this website be international because the Foundation is meant to exist  for all contributors whatever their language, and because it is meant to become a quick, relevant and accurate resource for anyone looking for information about us. I *do not think* we should aim in covering something like 150 languages or more :-) but if rather quickly we could cover half a dozen langages, it would be great.

ant

---------------------------------

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040705/46207f47/attachment-0001.htm


body:
Hello :-)

A new wiki website was set this morning : www.wikimedia.org.

This website will be the official site of the Wikimedia Foundation.
It is meant to contain
* Description of what the Wikimedia Foundation is (mission statement, history, board, general organisation, bylaws, other legal considerations etc...)
* Information about the Foundation activity (such as board meeting report, agenda, budget, financial statements etc...)
* Membership information (and in particular due system)
* Donation system
* Information on local chapters (the extent of it needs to be decided with the chapters themselves)
* General information which will be easily available for press or any organisation or fundraising etc... : such as a condensed dozen pages, recalling history of wikimedia projects, short description and access to all projects, basic information in terms of figures (number of hits per day, number of pages, number of contributors... graphs), links to the most relevant references, global press releases
* Relevant links for more information (for contact, mediawiki software etc...)

The site has two goals. First "internal" communication from the Foundation toward all editors (or members).
Second, "external" communication from the Foundation to any potential donator or organism contacted for grants, or more generally speaking press. And of course, hosting of the dues and donation system.

A lot of the information is not really meant to be updated frequently (such as mission statement, bylaws), or will be edited by board members or officers mostly (such as board reports, financial reports). These informations need to be protected and the site will be low editing traffic since a good part of it will be static most of the time. Basically, the rule of thumb is that *any* information included in that website is approved by the board. For these reasons, access will be restricted to a limited number of editors. Currently me only :-) Cough. I'll fix accounts for Angela, Jimbo, Mav and one developer, as soon as I find time. We'll see for details later on.

Note : the *current* wikimedia web site is a mix of
* html pages which are editable directly on meta, but are in html format on a wiki page. Though the concept is good, these pages are not very easily editable (that is okay for a couple of pages, but not really for dozens). Some of them are currently protected (for example bank statements are protected and already edited by Mav only).
* pages which are available only by developers (any update of these pages require help from a developer, not for security reasons I understood, but just because wiki synthax does not always handle html synthax well). This is not very practical, and should be avoided if possible.

Hence the suggestion by Jimbo to set up a wiki, which was done this morning.

Now, obviously, some of the future pages on the website require input of many contributors. So most of these pages will be available on meta (actually, they will be started on meta), and they will be updated from time to time. I guess we will mostly begin with direct links.

Last point : we wish that this website be international because the Foundation is meant to exist  for all contributors whatever their language, and because it is meant to become a quick, relevant and accurate resource for anyone looking for information about us. I *do not think* we should aim in covering something like 150 languages or more :-) but if rather quickly we could cover half a dozen langages, it would be great.

ant

---------------------------------

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20040705/46207f47/attachment.html>


body:
Hello :-)

A new wiki website was set this morning : www.wikimedia.org.

This website will be the official site of the Wikimedia Foundation.
It is meant to contain
* Description of what the Wikimedia Foundation is (mission statement, history, board, general organisation, bylaws, other legal considerations etc...)
* Information about the Foundation activity (such as board meeting report, agenda, budget, financial statements etc...)
* Membership information (and in particular due system)
* Donation system
* Information on local chapters (the extent of it needs to be decided with the chapters themselves)
* General information which will be easily available for press or any organisation or fundraising etc... : such as a condensed dozen pages, recalling history of wikimedia projects, short description and access to all projects, basic information in terms of figures (number of hits per day, number of pages, number of contributors... graphs), links to the most relevant references, global press releases
* Relevant links for more information (for contact, mediawiki software etc...)

The site has two goals. First "internal" communication from the Foundation toward all editors (or members).
Second, "external" communication from the Foundation to any potential donator or organism contacted for grants, or more generally speaking press. And of course, hosting of the dues and donation system.

A lot of the information is not really meant to be updated frequently (such as mission statement, bylaws), or will be edited by board members or officers mostly (such as board reports, financial reports). These informations need to be protected and the site will be low editing traffic since a good part of it will be static most of the time. Basically, the rule of thumb is that *any* information included in that website is approved by the board. For these reasons, access will be restricted to a limited number of editors. Currently me only :-) Cough. I'll fix accounts for Angela, Jimbo, Mav and one developer, as soon as I find time. We'll see for details later on.

Note : the *current* wikimedia web site is a mix of
* html pages which are editable directly on meta, but are in html format on a wiki page. Though the concept is good, these pages are not very easily editable (that is okay for a couple of pages, but not really for dozens). Some of them are currently protected (for example bank statements are protected and already edited by Mav only).
* pages which are available only by developers (any update of these pages require help from a developer, not for security reasons I understood, but just because wiki synthax does not always handle html synthax well). This is not very practical, and should be avoided if possible.

Hence the suggestion by Jimbo to set up a wiki, which was done this morning.

Now, obviously, some of the future pages on the website require input of many contributors. So most of these pages will be available on meta (actually, they will be started on meta), and they will be updated from time to time. I guess we will mostly begin with direct links.

Last point : we wish that this website be international because the Foundation is meant to exist  for all contributors whatever their language, and because it is meant to become a quick, relevant and accurate resource for anyone looking for information about us. I *do not think* we should aim in covering something like 150 languages or more :-) but if rather quickly we could cover half a dozen langages, it would be great.

ant

---------------------------------

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20040705/46207f47/attachment-0001.html>


from_name: stephen mooney

subject: [WikiEN-l] Paradigm

body:
I have discovered the Paradigm which integrates science, and which debunks
physics of its misconceptions.

An essay titled Debunking Physics and Discovery the Process of the Universe
is posted at http://paradigm.blogharbor.com

A paradigm is not a theory. A paradigm is a specification of the results of
our observations and experiments.

All the results of the observations and experiments of physics are specified
by the Paradigm.

The application of the Paradigm is the future of science.

I invite your response.

Stephen Mooney

paradigm at westnet.com.au


from_name: Sheldon Rampton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Stephen Mooney

body:
Stephen Mooney wrote:

>I have discovered the Paradigm which integrates science, and which debunks
>physics of its misconceptions.

So have I! But mine is different from yours, and it's so profound
that no one but me can understand it.

--Sheldon Rampton


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

body:
Thanks, Anthere

I have one comment, however, about Article IV, Section IV. It states that a
quorum consists of at least 3 directors. Could this be amended to say, "A
quorum consists of at least three members, one of whom is an elected member (either
Contributing Active User Representative or Volunteer User Representative)."

I believe that this will inspire greater confidence among the users who
participated in the election, that their voice cannot be automatically overruled.

Danny
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040705/ceeb200b/attachment.htm


body:
Thanks, Anthere

I have one comment, however, about Article IV, Section IV. It states that a
quorum consists of at least 3 directors. Could this be amended to say, "A
quorum consists of at least three members, one of whom is an elected member (either
Contributing Active User Representative or Volunteer User Representative)."

I believe that this will inspire greater confidence among the users who
participated in the election, that their voice cannot be automatically overruled.

Danny
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040705/ceeb200b/attachment-0001.htm


body:
Thanks, Anthere

I have one comment, however, about Article IV, Section IV. It states that a
quorum consists of at least 3 directors. Could this be amended to say, "A
quorum consists of at least three members, one of whom is an elected member (either
Contributing Active User Representative or Volunteer User Representative)."

I believe that this will inspire greater confidence among the users who
participated in the election, that their voice cannot be automatically overruled.

Danny
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20040705/ceeb200b/attachment.html>


body:
Thanks, Anthere

I have one comment, however, about Article IV, Section IV. It states that a
quorum consists of at least 3 directors. Could this be amended to say, "A
quorum consists of at least three members, one of whom is an elected member (either
Contributing Active User Representative or Volunteer User Representative)."

I believe that this will inspire greater confidence among the users who
participated in the election, that their voice cannot be automatically overruled.

Danny
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20040705/ceeb200b/attachment-0001.html>


from_name: Ralesk Ne'vennoyx

subject: [Wikipedia-l] thank you

body:
C A S [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
> Id like to thank you, as members of the Wikimedia Board, as members of
> the mediation committee, and as concerned citizens -- for being so rude
> as to not even bother to respond to this issue. It is obvious that you
> feel I can be banned by anyone, for any reason; regardless of Jimbo
> Wales request that I be treated according to the rules of the website.
> Thank you for not caring, it means a lot to me.

I tell you what?s rude.  This is rude:  Shut the F*CK up.

No-one has been rude to you, but many readers of this list have been
forced to read your endless whining and the simple fact that you do not
understand, no matter how many times Anthere repeated it that this is
NOT the right place to do so.  This concerns the English list, wikien-l,
and the voting section inside the Wikipedia, whose address has been
mentioned at least once.  Requests for Review of Administrative Actions
or what ever it?s called.

I do not understand why you keep repeatedly disregarding NICELY laid
requests that you go to the RIGHT places with your problems.  Again, all
you need is to sign up to the damn list, else you?ll be moderated.

Now please read and act accordingly, I have had enough of your ?input?
to this list.

--
R.


from_name: Christopher Mahan

subject: [WikiEN-l] WHEELER's anti-Semitism

body:
--- Fredrik Johansson <fred at frad.org> wrote:
> There is _psychological_ harm.
>
> And it not only hurts individuals, it directly affects the
> community's
> functioning. Hate speech, as you say, communicates hate. People who
> feel hated experience distress, which reduces their productivity.
> In particular, it makes cooperation much harder. And our goal is to
> COLLABORATIVELY write an encyclopedia. Hate speech is therefore
> directly counter-productive.

there is a sayng in texas which I find appropriate:
If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

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

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


from_name: Mark Pellegrini

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Stephen Mooney

body:
I have discovered a suprisingly simple supergrand-unified theory
that explains God, the Universe, and everything. I would post it here,
but alas, the margin is too small :)
--Mark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040705/5e869b18/attachment.htm


from_name: Volker Hetzer

subject: [Wikitech-l] Mediawiki on oracle...

body:
Hi!
We are thinking of setting up a wiki in our department and are looking
at the different wikis out there.
However, one requirement is that it must run on oracle, for a variety
of reasons. (I'd like to avoid a discussion of how I am supposed to
convince my boss to install a second, isolated database in the department.)
Has anybody already managed to get the mediawiki running on an oracle db?
Can anybody think offhand of any problems that might arise?
Right now the only thing that comes to my mind is BLOB handling, which
is slightly different in oracle.
Anything else?

Lots of Greetings!
Volker


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikitech-l] Still link bugs

body:
The link to an existing article ([[de:Kotelett]]) is shown as red
(non-existing). Re-saving the article doesn't repair it. I remember that
problem from before, but I thought that was fixed?

Magnus


from_name: Robert Graham Merkel

subject: [WikiEN-l] Paradigm

body:
On Mon, Jul 05, 2004 at 05:37:20AM +0000, wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org wrote:
> I have discovered the Paradigm which integrates science, and which debunks
> physics of its misconceptions.
>
> An essay titled Debunking Physics and Discovery the Process of the Universe
> is posted at http://paradigm.blogharbor.com
>
> A paradigm is not a theory. A paradigm is a specification of the results of
> our observations and experiments.
>
> All the results of the observations and experiments of physics are specified
> by the Paradigm.
>
> The application of the Paradigm is the future of science.
>
> I invite your response.
>
> Stephen Mooney
>
Mr. Mooney,

Wikipedia is a distributed project of thousands of volunteers; it has an
extremely loose governance structure.  There is no "editorial board" -
editorial content is (usually) determined by the consensus of those who
are interested in writing about those topics, on the basis of guidelines
developed, mostly by consensus, over its history.

One guideline that have been with the project virtually since its inception,
and on which there is a very strong consensus, has been that Wikipedia is not
a venue to publish original research: see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

If your work gains the attention of a significant number of people (for
instance, through publication in a prominent scientific journal and
the consequent further investigation of your ideas by others, or if a
book featuring your work becomes popular, or you recieve attention
in the mass media, or suchlike), then it will be appropriate for
Wikipedia to add material on it.

Given that your website with the explanation of your theory dates to
four days ago and has not received any attention in either the
scientific or general media (indeed, Google suggests that noone has
linked to your website yet), at this moment material posted to Wikipedia
about your work would likely be removed according to this policy.

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Robert Merkel
                                     robert.merkel at benambra.org
                                        http://benambra.org

"Sleeping makes me tired"
  -- Inspector Gadget (Don Adams)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


from_name: Rowan Collins

subject: [Wikitech-l] extending wiki-syntax

body:
Enrico Weigelt wrote:

> So I'm planning to extend the common wiki syntax by some additional
> elements, i.e. some block/section tags (as used by some template engines).

It's worth noting that there isn't really such a thing as "the common
wiki syntax" - the variant used by the MediaWiki software has some
things in common with the original WikiWiki (via its ancestry as a
modified UseMod script), but has gradually evolved to more closely fit
the needs of the project(s): magic language links, 'built-in' LaTeX,
tables, images, etc. Other wiki engines have similarly evolved to suit
their own circumstances - I came upon one wiki devoted to the game of
Go, which unsurprisingly has quite elegant syntax for describing Go
boards and games, which are then rendered graphically. And some have
chosen a completely different "style" for their syntax - using *bold*
instead of '''bold''' for instance.

You might want to read around on some of the existing ideas related to
this; some of the pages on MeatBall might be a good starting point,
such as:
http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?WikiSyntax
http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?WikiMarkupStandard

> The traditional wiki syntax would in fact be a subset of the new (extendet)
> syntax. We could now store also some metadata, i.e. changelog, editor-flags
> (i.e. for non-public areas), etc.

I think it's probably better to think of this not so much as an
"extension" to the "traditional" syntax (which essentially doesn't
exist), but rather as another syntax that shares similarities with
that of MediaWiki (if that is the software you choose to integrate it
with / base it on). In other words, go forward and implement a
solution to your own needs, and if as a result you produce something
that can be 'transparently' included in MediaWiki (without need to
drastically reformat existing content, for instance) then all the
better.

Happy hacking!

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: WikimediaFoundation web site

body:
I reported this here :
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_activities#Request_for_bylaws_modifications

ant

daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:
> Thanks, Anthere
>
> I have one comment, however, about Article IV, Section IV. It states
> that a quorum consists of at least 3 directors. Could this be amended to
> say, "A quorum consists of at least three members, one of whom is an
> elected member (either Contributing Active User Representative or
> Volunteer User Representative)."
> I believe that this will inspire greater confidence among the users who
> participated in the election, that their voice cannot be automatically
> overruled.
>
> Danny
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


from_name: Ray Kiddy

subject: [Wikitech-l] invoking mediawiki via cli?

body:
I went to some of the pages on MediaWiki, such as
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_become_a_MediaWiki_hacker and
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_architecture, hoping this
would be explained.

I tried:

% cd mediawiki/phase3
% php ./index.php
%

That blank line was the output. In other words, there was no output.

I was hoping this would just work. I once set up a fairly large (or too
large) perl-based app and the ability to also invoke it from the
command line, and pass in parameters so that they would be treated as
if they came out of the http headers, was completely invaluable.

Is there some non-obvious way to turn this on?

thanx - ray


from_name: David Nguyen

subject: [Wikitech-l] About the beta

body:
Hello,

It seems that wikipedia is using the 1.3.0beta4, does
it ? Or is it slightly different from this beta. When
do you think there will be a release candidate ? And
can i use it in a production env ? because if you use
it, it should be enough stable to give a try.

I wonder if its possible to personnalized the left
menu. I mean, integrating it in a portal for example ?

I just need to had other possibility in the menu.
Which files I should modify ?

Thanks,

Cr?ez gratuitement votre Yahoo! Mail avec 100 Mo de stockage !
Cr?ez votre Yahoo! Mail sur http://fr.benefits.yahoo.com/

Dialoguez en direct avec vos amis gr?ce ? Yahoo! Messenger !T?l?chargez Yahoo! Messenger sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com


from_name: Brion Vibber

body:
Ray Kiddy wrote:
> % cd mediawiki/phase3
> % php ./index.php
> %
>
> That blank line was the output. In other words, there was no output.

With no title paramter the output will be a redirect to the main page;
since this is done with an HTTP Location header, the command-line PHP
interface probably won't give you anything very useful, just as you
describe.

> I was hoping this would just work. I once set up a fairly large (or too
> large) perl-based app and the ability to also invoke it from the command
> line, and pass in parameters so that they would be treated as if they
> came out of the http headers, was completely invaluable.
>
> Is there some non-obvious way to turn this on?

Try using PHP in CGI mode instead of CLI.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040705/564f936b/attachment.pgp>


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] WHEELER's anti-Semitism

body:
On 07/05/04 21:31, Christopher Mahan wrote:
> --- Fredrik Johansson <fred at frad.org> wrote:

>>There is _psychological_ harm.
>>And it not only hurts individuals, it directly affects the
>>community's
>>functioning. Hate speech, as you say, communicates hate. People who
>>feel hated experience distress, which reduces their productivity.
>>In particular, it makes cooperation much harder. And our goal is to
>>COLLABORATIVELY write an encyclopedia. Hate speech is therefore
>>directly counter-productive.

> there is a sayng in texas which I find appropriate:
> If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Any sufficiently rabid partisan will consider the edits of their
opponents to be close enough to hate speech to treat as such.

That's why this discussion of 'hate speech' needs an INCREDIBLY
FIRM DEFINITION that does NOT sum up to "I know it when I see it."

- d.


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Should Wikipedia endorse or oppose mass murder?

body:
Hatred leads to murder. Murder is bad. But should Wikipedia officially
oppose hatred? Or mass murder?

Given that Jimbo regularly intersperses his mailing list posts with
terms like "WikiLove" and urges us all to communicate cordially, perhaps
a time will come when Wikipedia can move from near-anarchy and/or benign
dictatorship to some sort of constitutional democracy. If so, a
statement of values may be necessary.

Values inform rules. We can't just make up rules out of the thin air,
and voting on them won't work if for no other reason than
ballot-stuffing can't be tracked.

Yet the mainstay of Wikipedia's conflict resolution policy, indeed the
only thing that allows it to be an open WIKI, is that all views are
tolerated; i.e., no view is endorsed when there's a controversy. We all
hesitate to tamper with this policy that has served us so well. But it
has its weaknesses.

* There's no way to stop people from their Holocaust-denying,
anti-Semitic rants.
* The debate over mass murder (i.e., "genocide") carried out by
Communist regimes always causes deadlock via page protection and
bannings.

I mean, if hate and murder are such problems maybe we should officially
label them as "bad".

Ed Poor (speaking for myself)


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: About a new language...

body:
Timwi wrote:

> Desmond Tutu wrote:
>
>> I write to you because I think it would be important to make another
>> translation of Wikipedia. I would like to make a translation in Chadian.
>
>
> As far as my research indicates, Chadian is a dialect of Arabic. Do
> you think it's worth having a whole new Wikipedia in Chadian Arabic?

I think there's a little chain-pulling going on here - the "North
America and Europe" but not Africa is suspicious, and I don't think
there are any dialects of Arabic written in Cyrillic (but we can't
discount the medieval tales of Russians led by Prester Ivan who
settled around the southern shores of Lake Chad :-) ).

Stan


from_name: Mark Richards

body:
I havn't stopped beating my wife yet, if that's what
you mean...
I don't really think that we are forced to endorse
mass murder, but there are reasonable people who think
that it is occasionally the better of two evils.
(Hiroshima springs to mind)
Better to describe what happened, and leave the
endorsing or opposing to other forums.
Mark

--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> Hatred leads to murder. Murder is bad. But should
> Wikipedia officially
> oppose hatred? Or mass murder?
>
> Given that Jimbo regularly intersperses his mailing
> list posts with
> terms like "WikiLove" and urges us all to
> communicate cordially, perhaps
> a time will come when Wikipedia can move from
> near-anarchy and/or benign
> dictatorship to some sort of constitutional
> democracy. If so, a
> statement of values may be necessary.
>
> Values inform rules. We can't just make up rules out
> of the thin air,
> and voting on them won't work if for no other reason
> than
> ballot-stuffing can't be tracked.
>
> Yet the mainstay of Wikipedia's conflict resolution
> policy, indeed the
> only thing that allows it to be an open WIKI, is
> that all views are
> tolerated; i.e., no view is endorsed when there's a
> controversy. We all
> hesitate to tamper with this policy that has served
> us so well. But it
> has its weaknesses.
>
> * There's no way to stop people from their
> Holocaust-denying,
> anti-Semitic rants.
> * The debate over mass murder (i.e., "genocide")
> carried out by
> Communist regimes always causes deadlock via page
> protection and
> bannings.
>
> I mean, if hate and murder are such problems maybe
> we should officially
> label them as "bad".
>
> Ed Poor (speaking for myself)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


body:
--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> Hatred leads to murder. Murder is bad. But should Wikipedia
> officially
> oppose hatred? Or mass murder?

Hatred does not necessarily lead to murder. Some people hate mildly,
and nevere kill. Others hate a lot and not kill. Yet others hate not
at all and still kill. Yet others kill accidentally.
Murder is bad, given the definition of murder as a
non-government-allowed activity. Yet when governments commit murder,
the international community sometimes steps in. The definition of
murder is thus also iffy.

Does W oppose hatred? I don't think so. We're like journalists in a
war. We take neither side, and rather strive to give balanced and
non-point of view accounts of the events and circumstances.

> Given that Jimbo regularly intersperses his mailing list posts with
> terms like "WikiLove" and urges us all to communicate cordially,
> perhaps
> a time will come when Wikipedia can move from near-anarchy and/or
> benign
> dictatorship to some sort of constitutional democracy. If so, a
> statement of values may be necessary.

> Values inform rules. We can't just make up rules out of the thin
> air,
> and voting on them won't work if for no other reason than
> ballot-stuffing can't be tracked.

Indeed, until accurate and tamper-proof voting can be effected, the
primary means of discussion will remain the forum, such as this
mailing list.

> Yet the mainstay of Wikipedia's conflict resolution policy, indeed
> the
> only thing that allows it to be an open WIKI, is that all views are
> tolerated; i.e., no view is endorsed when there's a controversy. We
> all
> hesitate to tamper with this policy that has served us so well. But
> it
> has its weaknesses.

> * There's no way to stop people from their Holocaust-denying,
> anti-Semitic rants.
> * The debate over mass murder (i.e., "genocide") carried out by
> Communist regimes always causes deadlock via page protection and
> bannings.

I think rather that this is a strength. Just as you cannot stop the
two activities above, you cannot stop, by the same mechanism,
dissemination of information about democracy, about different
cultures, religions, opinions, knowledge of events, and views that
generally dissent from the "official" view.

> I mean, if hate and murder are such problems maybe we should
> officially
> label them as "bad".

And they are, already, in the world, generally labeled as bad.

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

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


subject: [WikiEN-l] WHEELER's anti-Semitism

body:
--- "steven l. rubenstein" <rubenste at ohiou.edu> wrote:
> Chris Mahan recently wrote:
>
> >The reason why I say that hate speech is not destructive is that
> >speech itself is strictly communicative.
>
> which begs the question, what do you mean by "communicative?"  I
> assume you
> mean that the only thing it does is to describe or express
> something else,
> but has not force in and of itself.

Your assumption was incorrect.

> If this is what CM means, he
> is
> mistaken.

It was not.

> Some propositions are indeed expressive or descriptive
> (e.g., "I
> feel sick" or "the house is blue" -- in the first case the
> proposition
> describes how I feel, in the second case it describes the house.
> In both
> cases the proposition is about something else).

Both are communicated.

> But some
> propositions are
> performative -- statements which are in and of themselves actions.

Of course. Speech and/or Logic 101.

> J.L.
> Austin provides some pretty common examples: when someone says "I
> name this
> ship The Queen Elizabeth" it is the very pronouncement that
> accomplishes
> the naming.

Technically, it is the recording of such name in the naval records,
coupled with the incribing. The monarch in question is simply issuing
an order, which may or may not be obeyed (generally is though).

I could have thought to myself to name my wallet "Bob" and not said
it out loud. For me, though, without having "said" or "spoken"
anything, the wallet is now Bob. However, for that to become known
among others, I would have to say it, either in writing or out loud
with my voice.

I could just have painted the ship's name on it, without saying
anything with my mouth. This should still communicate the name of the
ship to the world (or at least to the maritime authorites).

>  Similarly, when one says "I bet you ..." it is the act
> of
> saying so that constitutes the bet.

Establishment of a contract. If the contract was not communicated to
the other party, the other party would have no knowledge of it,
therefore there would have been no contract, thus no bet. It implies
that the other party hears it, and therefore there was communication.

> Or when someone says "I
> promise," it
> is the very act of speaking that accomplishes the promise.

I was promising something to myself when I read this. I did not speak
it out loud. Is is not a promise still? Communicating a promise to
another is establishment of a performance contract. The promise may
exist independently, this the communicating of the promise is
dissociated from the creation of the promise.

> You can
> call
> these statements "communicative" if you like -- what is important
> is a
> major distinction between these kinds of statements and statements
> like
> "the house is blue."

If I thought very hard that "__ethnicity__ are __expletive__ and
should be all exterminated and the world would be a better place",
yet did not  actually say it, it would still color my thoughts,
actions, and attitudes. Just because something is not said does not
mean it does not have a real impact in the world.

> The question is, what kind of proposition is "Jewish concentration
> camps"
> (meaning, concentration camps run by Jews) I think the answer is,
> both.

Did saying "Jewish concentration camp" all of a sudden make a jewish
concentration camp come into being?

> It
> is a descriptive statement that can be either true or false (and in
> the
> case of the camps WHEELER was referring too, false).

Truth and falseness of a statement is discovered through examination
of fact, not emotional posturing.

> But I believe
> it is
> also a performative statement, and it is in this sense that it is
> hate
> speech, and destructive.

This is where I disagree. Just saying this does not make it come into
being.
Lemme try: There is a hot blonde in my lap... Blink... Nope, didn't
work.

> Some people have suggested that what makes it hate speech is its
> potential
> to incite physical violence.

Likewise the Declaration of Independence (US) had a definite
potential to incite physical violence, and did, causing a war and
thousands of deaths.

> I think this is valid

I do not.

> (and a valid
> legal
> principle: threatening someone may be punishable, at least in the
> U.S., or
> may not -- courts decide in part from weighing how likely the
> threat could
> lead to physical violence).

Mein Kampf, by Adolph Hitler, is in thousands of libraries all over
the world.

> But the argument of "hate speech" is
> that
> performative statements are in and of themselves violent.

Some may be, yes.

> One
> example is
> the power of speech to intimidate (and although threats may be
> purely
> verbal, they can still be actionable for this reason).

Yes.

> This was
> established in the United States by the 1942 Supreme Court decision
>
> Chaplinsky versus New Hampshire, which is the basis for some hate
> speech
> legislation in the U.S. (and available on the web).  Another is the
> power
> of speech to stigmatize (this is in effect the argument MacKinnon
> and
> Dworkin made against pornography -- the very act renders women
> sexual objects).

In 1942, US courts were still enforcing segregation.

On stigmatism: I went to high school. No need for a court decision to
state the obvious.

> The ACLU opposes hate speech legislation on two grounds: first, it
> considers hate speech one of the prices a society must pay for a
> general
> right to freedom of speech, and second, it believes the best
> response to
> hate speech is more speech.  I happen to sympathize very strongly,
> or just
> plain agree, with both of these.  I do not think the state should
> limit
> free speech.  WHEELER, for example, has a right to say whatever
> anti-Semitic thing he wants to, to anyone who wants to listen.

> The question is, do I have to listen?  Do you, do we have to
> listen?  And,
> more importantly, does Wikipedia have to be a medium through which
> anyone
> spews hate speech?  I don't think so.

Incorrect. The Supreme Court has ruled (lawyers can dig the ref out)
that restricting venue of speech is an infringement on the exercise
of free speech. As long as a forum is public, they are allowed to
speak.

Granted, you may not want to hear it, yet you are not allowed to
prohibit others from exercising their rights.

> And I think that anyone who construes this argument against hate
> speech on
> Wikipedia as censorship is seriously distorting the situation.

> Wikipedia
> is a community, not the state.

Yet operates within the legal jurisdiction of the State of Florida,
and of the United States of America.

> Just because a person has a legal
> right to
> do something does not mean we are obliged to collude.

Of course not. You may, at your leisure, recluse yourself from the
proceedings.

> For example,
> people
> have a right to advertise but we do not allow advertisements on
> Wikipedia.

Actually they do. Others have a right to remove such advertising.
They do not have a right to prohibit others from removing the
advertising.

> Advertisements do not benefit our project, and only
> mislead
> people as to the nature of our project.
> The same goes for hate
> speech.

Does it?

> If
> I thought it were possible that hate speech on Wikipedia could lead
> to the
> improvement of an article, for example, I would defend it.  But I
> don't
> think it leads to the improvement of articles, and only
> appropriates our
> space to hateful purposes.

I personally think that it does serve a purpose. Two, actually.
First, it allows other wikipedia contributors to gauge the
personality and background of fellow contributors. Second, it puts a
different light on many subjects, which then encourages more in-depth
research and analysis of the matter being contended.
Actually, there are many others that come to mind: It allows for
lively discussions on wikipedia's stances, as well as demonstrates to
the public at large that we are not Jimbo's Yes Men.

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

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: About the beta

body:
David Nguyen wrote:

> because if you use it, it should be enough stable to give a try.

The validity of this conclusion is disputed ;-)


from_name: Forest

subject: [Wikitech-l] Footnotes Code

body:
There's been calls for footnotes [[m:Footnotes]], and it is an ability
that I've wanted for my own wiki for a while, so I hacked up some changes
to Parser.php and Skin.php (from CVS about three weeks ago). I used the
formatHeading function as a template and I am not even a PHP novice, but
the code works okay.

I used [note:foo] as the syntax. There are, I'm sure better choices.

Known issues
* When you have section editing turned on, you can click on editing the
Notes section. You shouldn't be
able to do that because there is nothing really there.
* Double quotes in the note break the hovering behavior of the in text
reference

Thanks for MediaWiki!

-Forest Gregg

>  $text = preg_replace( '/(^|\n)-----*/', '\\1
', $text );
>
+  $text = $this->formatFootnotes( $text );
>  $text = $this->doHeadings( $text );

/*
 *
 * This function accomplishes several tasks:
 * 1) Auto-number footnotes
 * 3) Add a Notes section on the bottom
 * 4) Auto-anchor footnotes
 *
 * It loops through all footnotes, collects the necessary data, then
 * splits up the
 * string and re-inserts the newly formatted headlines.
 *
 */
        /* private */ function formatFootnotes( $text, $isMain=true )
        {

                # numMatches is only used to test if there are footnotes,
                #should be better way
                $numMatches = preg_match_all( '/\[note:(.*?)\]/i', $text,
$matches );

                #check if there are any notes
                if ($numMatches) {

                # To perform operations on the HTML
                $sk =& $this->mOptions->getSkin();

                #footnote counter
                $footnoteCount = 0;

                foreach ( $matches[1] as $footnote ) {
                  $footnoteCount = $footnoteCount + 1;

                  #format notes that appear in  bottom note section
                  $footnotes .= $sk->footLine($footnoteCount, $footnote);

                  #format footnote and hold it in refer
                  $refer[$footnoteCount] = $sk->footNum($footnoteCount,
$footnote);
                }

                #format endnotes section
                $footnotes = $sk->endNotes($footnotes);

                $blocks = preg_split( '/\[note:(.*?)\]/i', $text );
                $i = 0;

                foreach( $blocks as $block ) {
                        $full .= $block;

                        if( !empty( $refer[$i+1] ) ) {
                                $full .= $refer[$i+1];
                        }
                        $i++;
                }

                $full .= '
'.$footnotes;
                return $full;
                }
                else {
                  return $text;
                    }
        }

[edit]

Skin.php

        function footLine( $number, $footnote ) {
          $foot = ''.$number.'. '.$footnote.'
';
          return $foot;
        }

        function footNum( $number, $footnote ) {
                return ''.$number.'';
        }

        function endNotes ( $footnotes ) {
          return

            "\n".
            '==Notes=='
            ."\n".
            $footnotes;
          }