body:
Anthere wrote:
> Jiaming Xu wrote:
>
>> Yes, the whole Wikipedia is still dead blocked in China, including the
>> .zh
>> section.
>>
>> On 11/22/05, Walter van Kalken
>> <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I will send it again as I have a feeling I am being ignored
>>>
>>> As I was told that we shouldn't do anything so the Chinese wikipedia
>>> would get unblocked I am curious ...... is it still blocked? If so I
>>> feel we should change tactics.
>>>
>>> Waerth/Walter
>
>
> Waerth, you are removing words from my mouth...

Oooops, a gentle english speaker indicated that my use of words were
quite incorrect here and could lead to confusion. He said I should have
said "you took the words right out of my mouth"

I did not mean to say anything ungentle to Waerth, I was just jumping on
the opportunity he offered me in opening the subject :-)

Thanks for opening the subject Waerth, doubly so as I thought the block
was lifted... so it is important we know that it is not...

Ant


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Philip Sandifer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Lauritsen speedy deletion??

body:
On Nov 22, 2005, at 11:31 AM, Sam Korn wrote:

> On 11/22/05, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>> It is, however, wholly outside any realm of reason or what is good
>> for the project.
>
> The kind of page I would delete is the one that says "John Smith is a
> brilliant footballer.  One day he's going to play in the Premiership!"
>  That line would be speediable under A7.  It is not good content that
> gets deleted.  It is only bad stuff.

But, to review, that is not what the Lauritsen article was.

-Phil


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikipedia-l] RE: Wikipedia-l Digest, Vol 28, Issue 51

body:
This question cannot be answered conclusively. There are two possibilities:

1. The material was originally uploaded under the GNU/FDL by the
author; they later decided to change the license
2. The material was originally uploaded by someone not the author,
wrongly claiming that it was under the GNU/FDL.

In the FIRST case, your rights under the GNU/FDL are remaining just as
they were, and thus you have the right to re-publish it in the way
allowed to you by the GNU/FDL. That they changed license doesn't
matter - all material that has once been published under the GNU/FDL
remains available as such (but their NEW versions and articles do
not).

In the SECOND case, they did not have the right to publish the
material under the GNU/FDL, and they also could not give you that
right. The claim that it was GNU/FDL material was false, and you have
no right to publish it as such, nor did you have that right before.

2005/11/22, Konstantinos <geraki at geraki.net>:
> Hello,
>
> I'm new to the mailing list and I have some questions regarding GFDL.
>
> I'm active in Greek wikipedia. Some months ago greek company
> http://www.magenta.gr/ created a wiki (http://www.live-pedia.gr) importing
> in it, its previously commercial encyclopedic dictionary
> http://www.magenta.gr/gr/lexicons/gr_encycl_dictionary.htm (of questionable
> quality) to create a wikipedia-like encyclopedia, asking from users to
> contibute. For months there was a notice that all content is GFDL (in fact
> they had copied the copyrights page
> (http://www.livepedia.gr/index.php/Live-Pedia.gr:%CE%94%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE
> %B9%CF%8E%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B1) from Greek wikipedia
> (http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%92%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%B9%CF%80%CE%B1%CE%AF%CE%
> B4%CE%B5%CE%B9%CE%B1:%CE%A0%CE%BD%CE%B5%CF%85%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%
> CE%AC_%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%B9%CF%8E%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B1). During
> this time, some articles from Live-Pedia were transferred to greek wikipedia
> and articles from greek wikipedia to Live-Pedia (paying attribution
> according to the GFDL)
>
> Last week the notice to GFDL has change to one that states that the content
> is under another license (Magenta Documentation License) but that license is
> not uploaded yet, so we do not know the rules.
>
> As I understand:
>
> * All content that has been copied while there was a notice that it was
> under the GFDL continues to be like that, and that means that all articles
> that were copied to wikipedia before they change the license can stay.
> * I can still use the articles (the 500 longest articles) I had copied to my
> computer before they change the license (I'd like to put some in wikipedia).
>
> Q1: Are these right?
>
> Q2: The articles copied from wikipedia to Live-Pedia should be deleted from
> Live-Pedia or they can stay with a notice that they are under the GFDL
> unlike the rest of their articles that they are under another license?
>
> Thanks,
>
> geraki at elwikipedia
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


from_name: Lars Aronsson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Preserving GFDL requirements when splitting articles

body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 11/20/05, Lars Aronsson <lars at aronsson.se> wrote:
> > have agreed to this "implicit wiki license".
>
> And how to you reconcile this with the fact that there is a non
> trivial amount of GFDLed content inserted into Wikipedia by someone
> other than its copyright holder?

That is a good question.  Copying GFDL text into a (GFDL) wiki and
then copying it out again without modifications (e.g. Wikisource)
would obviously be ok, but is this also legally compatible with
"normal wiki editing, as we know it" (i.e. my proposed "implicit
wiki license")?  I don't know.  Have there been any conflicts of
this kind, where a copyright owner has protested against their
GFDL text being copied into Wikipedia?

I know a lot of public domain (EB1911 etc.) text is going in, and
that is not a problem.  But to what extent (and from where?) is
GFDL material being copied into Wikipedia?  Foldoc?  Wikitravel is
apparently CC-SA-BY, not GFDL.

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


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Uwe Brauer

subject:
[Wikitech-l] wikipedia connection are slowed down: client side
	solutions?

body:
Hello

I noted since a couple of days a slow down when I try to submit a
contribution. Is there anything I could do like enhance the cache of
my browser?

Uwe Brauer


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Lauritsen speedy deletion??

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

geni stated for the record:

> It doesn't matter how alert you are. At certain times (ok pretty much
> anytime except sunday morning) RC patrol is all about speed. Those ten
> minutes you spent reseaching were ten minuites which could have been
> spent keeping out vandalism.

Better to destroy fifty good article than allow one "joey is gay!!!!!1"
to last ten minutes, right?

- --
 Sean Barrett     | I specifically asked you not to
 sean at epoptic.org | program my Internet with pornography.
                  | I want it removed immediately.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDg3znMAt1wyd9d+URAmDFAJ0eXPD63KMSfZ4QUSqM/Aeu/SIXtQCghTFr
NcUJ0FLtvgdaEliP/U/9iJg=
=DhO/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Lauritsen speedy deletion??

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

Sam Korn stated for the record:

> If pages filling the speedy criteria during those hours, I will not be
> doing research to rescue them.  At other times, the amount of
> vandalism is far lower, so there's more time to research.  My method
> is fully within policy.

Ja, he vas only followink orders....

- --
 Sean Barrett     | I specifically asked you not to
 sean at epoptic.org | program my Internet with pornography.
                  | I want it removed immediately.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDg34xMAt1wyd9d+URAojtAJwIH608pMdMK9+UKxhSipIOBVCptQCfWF0z
vmkYnyvvkCMEvQ2AYzAZfYU=
=K2as
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Konstantinos

body:
Hello,

I'm new to the mailing list and I have some questions regarding GFDL.

I'm active in Greek wikipedia. Some months ago greek company
http://www.magenta.gr/ created a wiki (http://www.live-pedia.gr) importing
in it, its previously commercial encyclopedic dictionary
http://www.magenta.gr/gr/lexicons/gr_encycl_dictionary.htm (of questionable
quality) to create a wikipedia-like encyclopedia, asking from users to
contibute. For months there was a notice that all content is GFDL (in fact
they had copied the copyrights page
(http://www.livepedia.gr/index.php/Live-Pedia.gr:%CE%94%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE
%B9%CF%8E%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B1) from Greek wikipedia
(http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%92%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%B9%CF%80%CE%B1%CE%AF%CE%
B4%CE%B5%CE%B9%CE%B1:%CE%A0%CE%BD%CE%B5%CF%85%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%
CE%AC_%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%B9%CF%8E%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B1). During
this time, some articles from Live-Pedia were transferred to greek wikipedia
and articles from greek wikipedia to Live-Pedia (paying attribution
according to the GFDL)

Last week the notice to GFDL has change to one that states that the content
is under another license (Magenta Documentation License) but that license is
not uploaded yet, so we do not know the rules.

As I understand:

* All content that has been copied while there was a notice that it was
under the GFDL continues to be like that, and that means that all articles
that were copied to wikipedia before they change the license can stay.
* I can still use the articles (the 500 longest articles) I had copied to my
computer before they change the license (I'd like to put some in wikipedia).

Q1: Are these right?

Q2: The articles copied from wikipedia to Live-Pedia should be deleted from
Live-Pedia or they can stay with a notice that they are under the GFDL
unlike the rest of their articles that they are under another license?

Thanks,

geraki at elwikipedia


from_name: Joshua Schroeder

subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
Administartor Ed Poor has blocked me for reasons I cannot figure out. Can
somebody help me?
 Joshuaschroeder


from_name: stevertigo

subject: [WikiEN-l] How is validation supposed to work?

body:
> Heck, let them
> do it through an article
> validation feature.

Open question:

* How is the validation feature supposed to work?
* How is it to be refined?
* How is the data to be used and processed?
* How is such data going to be reinput to work on the
wiki to produce results?

SV

__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com


list: foundation-l

from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: new language policy

body:
Anthere wrote:
>
> The same problem exist for andalousian language. Many anon votes.
> Sockpuppetry chances raise high as well.
>
> In short, the voting system as is is a pure joke. What do you suggest ?

Currently everyone seems to acknowledge that the existing system is no
longer functional.  When Angela came up with it, it was a very good
solution to the problem that we faced at that time, but as time has gone
on, and we have more and more Wikipedias and we are more and more well
known, that system has broken down.  We run the risk of making very poor
judgments, being hoaxed, etc.

1. I do not support the concept of a "seed wiki" because the test of
what is a proper decision in this area does not depend solely on the
ability of a motivated group of people to push their agenda.  I have no
doubt whatsoever but that we could have a successful (in the sense of
article count and participation) wiki in "pig latin dialect" (a joke
language seen in many humorous machine translators on the net) if a
group of funny people decided to make it.  A seed wiki is not the answer.

(For non-native English speakers who don't know what 'pig latin' is, it
is a way of speaking English practiced mostly by either parents trying
to say things in front of children in a way that children don't
understand, or spoken by children for fun once they learn the trick.

Orfay Onnay-ativenay Englishay eakerspay oohay  on'tnay ownay atwhay
igpay atinlay isay....]

2.  I strongly support that legitimately existing small languages be
encouraged to start Wikipedias in their language either for direct
purposes of need (i.e. if many people speak only the small language) or
for language/cultural preservation purposes (i.e. if no one at all
speaks only the small language, for example Cornish, which was a dead
language which is now being revived and which has a 600 article
wikipedia and 200 converstaional speakers).

3.  I very strongly oppose the creation of new wikis for dialects which
are highly mutually intelligible with existing languages, and doubly so
if the dialects are being put forward as separate languages for
political purposes.  For example, I oppose the creation of an
African-American Vernacular English Wikipedia ("ebonics") because it is
not sufficiently different from Standard English _and_ because it's
creation would be fairly obviously done for political purposes.

4.  We must acknowledge that there are very many complex situations in
the world of languages, situations which can not be addressed by simple
prejudiced views of what languages we should have.  Additionally we must
acknowledge that mistakes have been made in the past, but that these
mistakes do not justify or set a precedent for future mistakes.

Among the more interesting complexities have to do with orthography.
Serbian and Croatian are, in my non-expert opinion, two very slightly
distinct dialects of exactly the same language, but with two different
orthographies and (sadly) a very politically charged situation.  This is
a special case, because rightly or wrongly (my opinion: wrongly) we now
have two wikipedias with separate communities, and there is no easy
solution.  I intend to visit Croatia and Serbia next year to try to
encourage the communities there to find a positive way to merge -- but
of course it will be up to them in the end.

-------

In my next email, I will outline what I think is a possible solution to
this dilemma.

--Jimbo


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: new language policy


subject: [Foundation-l] A proposal for new language creation

body:
In my last email, I detailed some of the broad principles that we follow
(or should follow) in the creation of new language editions of
Wikipedia, and in this email I will sketch a basic proposal for a
solution to our problems in this area.

To recap: I think there is broad community consensus for the following
principles:

1.  To encourage the creation of new Wikipedia editions in all
legitimate living natural languages, in an orderly way which involves
fostering a real community to care for wikis.  We want to make it easy
for newcomers to get excited and build, while at the same time trying to
keep from having too many dead wikis around.

For real languages, then, we only want some small indication of interest
from some native (or at least fluent) speakers.  We want to make this
part relatively easy.

2.  To discourage the creation of new Wikipedia editions in dialects
which do not significantly differ from existing Wikipedias.  We want to
keep from being hoaxed, and from falling into political traps.

For dialects, then, we want to require a much higher threshold before
allowing the wikipedia -- we need a good reason to start it.  A
"Bavarian" Wikipedia proposal would need a much much stronger rationale
before we start it than "German".  Obviously.

3.  To discourage the creation of new Wikipedia editions in constructed
languages.  I do not say "forbid" here, merely "discourage".  Similar to
dialects, constructed languages pose many risks for us of politics,
hoax, etc.

-----

Therefore, I propose that we have a two-tier system and a formal
committee formed of experts (or some outside language standards body if
we can find one which is suitable) which will declare if a proposed
language is an actual language or merely a dialect.  This committee will
issue for us an advisory opinion.  We are not required, as a community,
to follow the advisory opinion, but the advisory opinion will set a
differential threshold for creation.

For those which are declared to be languages, we could continue with
something like the existing process.

For those which are declared to be dialects, we would have a presumption
against creation, but that presumption could be overcome by a broad
community vote.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's provable anti-expertise bias

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> If the Wikipedia article is any good it should cite sources, and if
> you're at a university you have access to those sources and should
> check them and cite those where appropriate.
>
> Suppose two of my students turn in  essays on the Milgram experiment,
> one citing Wikipedia as the source and obviously relying on the
> Wikipedia article on that experiment, the other citing Milgram's paper
> and Blass' fairly recent critiques, and demonstrating a knowledge of
> the material. Well odds are that both went to Wikipedia first, but the
> second one actually did his homework.

That's exactly what I always say.  We strive to be (and sometimes, but
not yet nearly as much as we'd like) Britannica or better quality.  But
even at that level of quality, frankly, it's just not appropriate to
cite any encyclopedia at the university level.  That's not the role of
an encyclopedia in the process.

The proper role is what Tony describes here -- you use the encyclopedia
to get started, to get an overview, and *then* you do your homework, and
hopefully a lot more effectively than you would if you took a random
stab at the library catalogue.

--Jimbo


subject:
[Foundation-l] Cleaning up Wikibooks (was Re: Incubator Wiki
	for	New Wikimedia Projects)

body:
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
> Still, as a Wikibook admin I am scratching
> my head to understand the full impact of this official policy change. In
> particular, it means that non-textbooks like the Cookbook may have to
> go, at least if we have a consistant textbook-only policy.

In legitimate, accredited cooking schools, cookbooks are textbooks.  I
see no reason why a cookbook should not be considered a textbook in this
context.

> There is a general tolerance of new content that goes onto Wikibooks, in
> part because it is a smaller project and we are trying to attract and
> keep contributors even if they add content that perhaps should be there.

This is a mistake, actually.  The best way to attract and keep new
contributors is to have a clean and passionate mission which is kept as
simple as possible.  Seeing tolerance for a "white power" racist tract
(which went through a long vfd before finally being deleted after I saw
it and complained, rather than deleting on sight and banning the creator
as a racist vandal...) is a great way to drive away contributors -- the
same goes for other cruft like "How to get a girl".

> "I'm happy to give more time, but these books are already candidates for
> speedy deletion. The point is that, to give on example which was
> thankfully already deleted, a racist white-power book is not a textbook,
> never will be a textbook, and should have been deleted on site and the
> creator banned for vandalism on site. --Jimbo Wales
> <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales> 21:03, 13 November 2005
> (UTC)"
>
> The user that added this white power book has otherwise done Wikibooks
> quite a bit of good, and banning him would only make an enemy rather
> than a useful contributor.

I very strongly disagree.  Wikibooks does not need such books, and it
was an is an embarassment to see such a thing.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin Ed Poor allegation of abuse

body:
Ed Poor seems to be back to some very problematic administrative abuses. He
was involved in some controversy with me over his creation of pages
involving the creation/evolution controversy. One of the articles he wrote,
Aspects of evolution, I put up for AfD and it was about to go through when
he changed namespaces and deleted the reference to the nomination. Another
user:Vsmith, moved the page back only to have Ed Poor delete the page
entirely and move it to a WikiProject page. Since this seemed to be against
AfD policy, I moved the page back and reinstated the AfD notice.
 That's when Ed Poor decided to block me. I was quite surprised because I
was under the impression that administrators are not to block users when
they themselves were involved in the conflict. Since Ed Poor bloked
Duncharris yesterday, I think this may be an indication that Ed Poor should
be stripped of administrator privileges.

Sincerely,
 User:Joshuaschroeder


from_name: Evan Prodromou

subject: [Wikitech-l] Mediawiki RDF extension available

body:
Hi, folks. Just a quick note to let you know that there's an extension
for MediaWiki available that allows customized RDF output and in-page
user input of Turtle RDF. Code is here:

        http://wikitravel.org/~evan/mw-rdf-0.3.tar.gz

This is in production on Wikitravel, only works for MediaWiki 1.4.x (at
least for the history model, probably some other stuff is broken with
the new database schema, too). More info here:

        http://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:RDF
        http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/RDF

README file is attached for below for people who don't follow URLs so
much. I'll add it to extensions section of mediawiki CVS RSN, but I've
been using darcs for version control so far and I CBA to merge to CVS
yet.

~Evan

________________________________________________________________________
MediaWiki RDF extension

version 0.3
16 November 2005

This is the README file for the RDF extension for MediaWiki
software. The extension is only useful if you've got a MediaWiki
installation; it can only be installed by the administrator of the site.

The extension adds RDF (= Resource Definition Framework) support to
MediaWiki. It will show RDF data about a page with a new special page,
Special:Rdf. It allows users to add custom RDF statements to a page
between <rdf> ... </rdf> tags. Administrators and programmers can add
new automated RDF models, too.

This is the first version of the extension and it's almost sure to
have bugs. See the BUGS section below for info on how to report
problems.

== License ==

Copyright 2005 Evan Prodromou <evan at wikitravel.org>

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.

This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
GNU General Public License for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307
USA

== Installation ==

You have to have MediaWiki 1.4.x installed for this software to work.
Sorry, but that's the version I've got installed, so it's the one this
software works with.

You also have to install RAP, the RDF API for PHP
(www.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/suhl/bizer/rdfapi/) . I used version 0.92,
plus some custom hacks to make the N3 parser less fragile. You have to
apply a patch to the distribution if you want RDF to work; it's
included in this distribution. (Future versions of RAP will have these
enhancements).

You can copy the file MwRdf.php to the extensions directory of your
MediaWiki installation. Then add these lines to your LocalSettings.php:

  define("RDFAPI_INCLUDE_DIR", "/full/path/to/rdfapi-php/api/");
  require_once("extensions/MwRdf.php");

== 60-second intro to RDF ==

RDF is a framework for making statements about resources. Statements
are in the form:

    subject predicate object

Here, "subject" is a "resource" such as a person, place, idea, Web
page, picture, concept, or whatever. "Predicates" are names of
properties of a resource, like its color, shape, texture, size,
history, or relationships to other "resources". The object is the
value of the property. So "car color red" would be a statement about a
car; "Evan hasBrother Nate" would be a statement about a person.

Of course, it's important to be definite about which resources and
which properties we're discussing. In the Web world, each "resource"
is identified with a URI (usually an URL).

For electronic resources, this is usually pretty easy; the main page
of English-language Wikipedia, for example, has the URI
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page". However, for analog subjects
like people or ideas or physical objects, this can be a little
trickier.

There's no general solution, but the typical workaround is to use real
or made-up URIs to "stand in" for offline entities. For example, you
could use the URI for my Wikitravel user page,
"http://wikitravel.org/en/User:Evan", as the URI for me. Or you could
use my email address in URI form, like "mailto:evan at wikitravel.org".

People who need to agree on statements often create 'vocabularies' or
'schemas' that map concepts, object, and relationships to URIs. By
popularizing such a mapping, we can all agree about what a particular
URI "means".

For example, the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI)
(http://www.dublincore.org/) has a schema for very simple metadata,
such as you'd find on a library card. They've defined (among other
things), that the idea of authoring or creating something is
represented by the URL http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/creator. So
you could say:

    http://www.fsf.org http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/creator
mailto:rms at gnu.org

... means that the creator of the Free Software Foundation is Richard
Stallman.

There are a lot of RDF models out there; you can also create your own
if you want.

RDF statements can be encoded in a number of different ways. By far
the most popular is as XML, sometimes called "RDF/XML". "Turtle" is
another format, which uses plain text rather than XML; and "Ntriples"
is still another.

== Models ==

For any given resource you can describe it from many different
perspectives. For example, you can describe a man in terms of his
academic career, his job experience, his family members, his body
parts' size and weight, his location in space, his membership in
organizations, his hobbies and interests, etc.

In this extension, we use the term "model" to describe a perspective
on a resource. For example, listing the links to and from a page is
one model; its edit history is another model. You can choose which
models you want to know about when querying the system for RDF
statements about a subject, and only statements in that model are
returned.

This is mostly a concession to performance; it doesn't make sense to
calculate information about the history of a page if calling program
isn't going to use it.

There are a number of models built into this extension; you can also
add your own, if you know how to code PHP. The models have short
little codenames for easy access, listed below.

Models built in:

  * dcmes: Dublin Core Metadata Element Set (DCMES) data. Mostly
    information about who edited a page, when, and other simple stuff.
    Titles, format, etc. This is a common vocabulary that's very
    useful for general-purpose bots.
  * cc: Creative Commons metadata. Gives license information; there
    are a few tools and search engines that use this data.
  * linksto, linksfrom, links: Internal wiki links to and from a page.
    "links" is a shortcut for both.
  * image: DCMES information about images in a page.
  * history: version history of a page; who edited the page and when.
  * interwiki: links to different language versions of a page.
  * categories: which categories a page is in.
  * inpage: a special model for blocks of RDF embedded into the source
    code of MediaWiki pages; see "In-page RDF" below for info.

== Special:RDF ==

You can view RDF for a page using the [[Special:Rdf]] feature. It
should be listed on the list of special pages as "Rdf". Enter the
title of the page you want RDF for in the title box, and choose one or
more of the RDF models from the multiselect box. You can also select
which output format you want; XML is probably most useful and can be
viewed in a browser.

The Special:Rdf page can also be called directly, with the following
parameters:

  * target: title of the article to get RDF info about. If no target
    URL is provided, the special page shows the input form.
  * modelnames: comma-separated list of model names, like
    "links,cc,history". Default is a list of standard models,
    configurable per-site (see below).
  * format: output format; one of 'xml', 'turtle' and 'ntriples'.
    Default is XML.

== In-page RDF ==

Any user can make additional RDF statements about any resource by
adding an in-page RDF block to the page. The RDF needs to be in Turtle
format (http://www.dajobe.org/2004/01/turtle/), which is extremely
simple. It's a subset of Notation3
(http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3.html), for which there is a
good introduction. (http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/Primer.html)

RDF blocks are delimited by the tag "<rdf>". They're invisible for
normal output, but they can provide information for RDF-reading items.
Here's an example:

  Mathematics is ''very'' hard.

  <rdf>
  <> dc:subject "Mathematics"@en .
  </rdf>

Here, the rdf block says that the subject of the article is
"Mathematics". Note that <> in Turtle means "this document". Another
example:

  Chilean wines are quite delicious.

  <rdf>
  <> dc:source <http://example.org/chileanwines.html> .
  <http://example.org/chileanwines.html>
      dc:creator "Bob Smith" .
  </rdf>

Here, we've said that the article's source is another Web page on
another server; we can also say that that other Web page's author is
Bob Smith.

In-page RDF is displayed whenever the "inpage" model is requested for
Special:RDF; it's one of the defaults. It's also useful for people
making MediaWiki extensions; you can have users add information in
in-page RDF, and then extract it and read it using the function
MwRdfGetModel(). This lets users add data that isn't for presentation
but perhaps for automated tools to use.

Note also that MediaWiki templates are expanded when in-page RDF is
queries. So if the syntax of Turtle is daunting, you can add templates
that make it easier. For example, we could create a template
Template:Source for showing source documents:

  <rdf>
  <> dc:source <{{{1}}}> .
  <{{{1}}}> dc:creator "{{{2|anonymous}}}" .
  </rdf>

We could then make the same statement as above with a template
transclusion:

  {{source|http://example.org/chileanwines.html|Bob Smith}}

Note that a number of namespaces are pre-defined for your RDF blocks.
Some basic namespaces are provided by RAP; you can define custom
namespaces with the global variable $wgRdfNamespaces . In addition,
each of the article namespaces is mapped to a namespace prefix in
Turtle, so you can say something like this:

   <rdf>
       Wikitravel_talk:Spelling dc:subject Wikitravel:Spelling .

       :Montreal dc:spatial "Montreal" .
   </rdf>

Note that the default prefix (":") is the article namespace.

== Customization ==

There are a few customization variables available, mostly for
programmers.

$wgRdfDefaultModels -- an array of names of the default models to use
		    when no model name is specified.
$wgRdfNamespaces -- You can add custom namespaces to this associative
		 array, of the form 'prefix' => 'uri' .
$wgRdfModelFunctions -- an associative array mapping model names to
		    functions that generate the model. See below for
		    how to add a new model.
$wgRdfOutputFunctions -- A map of output format to functions that
		      generate that output. You can add new output
		      formats by adding to this array.

== Extending ==

You can add new RDF models to the framework by creating a model
function and adding it to the $wgRdfModelFunctions array. The function
will get a single MediaWiki Article object as a parameter; it should
return a single RAP Model object (a collection of statements) as a
result. For example,

    function CharacterCount($article) {
        # create a new model
        $model = ModelFactory::getDefaultModel();
	# get the article source
	$text = $article->getContent(true);
	# ... and its size
	$size = mb_strlen($text);
	# Get the resource for this article
	$ar = MwRdfArticleResource($article);
	# Add a statement to the model
	$model->add(new Statement($ar, new
Resource("http://example.org/charcount"),
				  new Literal($size)));
	# return the model
	return $model;
    }

You can then give the model a name like so:

$wgRdfModelFunctions['charcount'] = 'CharacterCount';

You can add a message to the site describing your model like so:

$wgMessageCache->addMessages(array('rdf-charcount' => 'Count of
characters'));

You can also create model-outputting functions if you so desire; they
should accept a RAP model as input and make output as they would to
the Web. This is probably only useful if you want a specific RDF
encoding mechanism that's not RDF/XML, Turtle, or Ntriples; for
example, TriG or TriX.

== Future ==

These are some future directions I'd like to see things go:

* Store statements in DB: statements could be stored in the database
  when the page is saved and retrieved when needed. This would make it
  to do extended queries based on information about *all* pages.
* Performance: there wasn't much performance tuning and there are
  probably way too many DB hits and reads and such.
* Semantic tuning: I'd like to make sure that the statements in the
  standard models are accurate and useful.

== Bugs ==

Send bug reports, patches, and feature requests to Evan Prodromou
<evan at wikitravel.org> .

--
Evan Prodromou <evan at wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel (http://wikitravel.org/) -- the free, complete, up-to-date
and reliable world-wide travel guide


from_name: Neil Harris

subject: [Wikitech-l] six wikipedia conjectures, and slowness

body:
Mark Williamson wrote:
> What about:
>
> Conjecture 8. Regardless of the final result, the inner workings of
> Wikipedia are so chaotic and at times unpleasant that most readers
> would rip all of their hair out if they watched a documentary about
> the creative process behind the articles.
>
> Fair?
>
> Mark
"Politics^W Wikipedia is like sausage making, you don't want to see how
it's done."

-- Neil/
////
/


from_name: pikola Thierry

subject: [Foundation-l] RE:New language policy

body:
According to the point 2 in
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposed_policy_for_wikis_in_new_languages

the language proposed must have a standard writing
system.

If we approve the creation of Wikipedias such as
Andalusian Spanish, we would create a Wikipedia where
the users will have to create their own standard. This
would be a huge contradiction with the Wikipedia
principle against including original research, because
the Wikipedia itself would become a linguistic
research project in order to ellaborate a standard
written form of the Spanish speech from Andalusia.

Wikimedia community should decide which role new
Wikipedias play on new writing systems creation.

Another problem of creating such Wikipedia is that the
great majority of Andalusian speakers don't feel that
they talk a different language than the rest of the
Spanish speakers. Therefore, Wikimedia would become a
non neutral part on the sociolinguistic discussion
about language identity of Andalusian speakers. If we
create an Andalusian Wikipedia we would agree on the
claim that Andalusian is a separate language from
Spanish.

Another funny thing which should happen is that,
taking into account that latinoamerican Spanish has
significantly evolved from Andalusian Spanish, then,
all the latinoamerican Spanish speakers should learn
this special new writing system used in Wikipedia,
adopting it to their local Spanish variation.
Therefore they should actually be members of the
Andalusian Wikipedia. Then Andalucian will become one
of the largest languages of the world ;oD (half
kidding)

Anyway, what I wanted to say is that I really think
that Wikimedia Foundation should take much into
account two points:
Speakers identity and existence of a standard writing
on that language.

I think that Wikimedia should not be active part of
language creation, neither of language identity
discusion.

Thank you,
Javier Carro.

___________________________________________________________________________
Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger
T?l?chargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com


subject: [Foundation-l] RE:New language policy


from_name: Frieda Brioschi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Portal namespace

body:
I've two new namespace request: one for it.wiki and one for it.source.

For it.wiki:
like English, German and French Wikipedia we'd like to have a
namespace "Portale" too [here's the discussion on our village pump:
<http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar#Namespace_portali>]

For it.source:
we are already using a pseudo-namespace "Autore" [take a look here:
<http://it.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Speciale%3AAllpages&from=Autore%3A&namespace=0>],
is it possible, instead, having a "real" namespace "Autore"?

Thanks!

Ciao,
Frieda

2005/9/8, Ashar Voultoiz <hashar at altern.org>:
> Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
> > Hi,
> > We requested a new 'portal' namespace about one year ago but this came
> > to nothing. Some days ago, we discovered the English and German
> > Wikipedia are now using this namespace (sic!) so we requesting to be
> > able to do same [1]. The French word for portal is 'portail'.
> > Regards,
> >
> > Aoineko
> >
> > [1]
> > http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro/30_ao%C3%BBt_2005#Un_espace_de_nom_pour_nos_portails
>
> Done:
>  namespace 100 : Portail
>  namespace 101 : Discussion_Portail
>
> Announcing it on the local village pump.
>
>
> --
> Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
> http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/
> IM: hashar at jabber.org  ICQ: 15325080
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

--
___________________________________________
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Frieda


from_name: Andrew Venier

body:
S. Woodside wrote:
> Conjecture 4. That the development of a wikipedia article over time
> occurs in a manner consistent to the biological evolution of a species.
>
I would be rather surprised to hear that our articles are reproducing.


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Brute force image server upgrade

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> Data's finally all done copying (gar, what overloaded servers those were
> :P), arranging stuff now to set up the new server in use.

Up and running!

There's 2.5 terabytes free on the server's disk array so we should be
set for a few more months at least. ;)

There is somewhat more load on the server from NFS work that we'd like;
there may be some bugs in the image data caching, or extra checks are
being made that don't have to. But for now that's not a big problem as
the machine handles it well.

When we rearrange the image storage system there should be much less
need to hit the disk over NFS, so that should go down in the future to
make further room for real growth.

The server's currently pumping out about 200 objects per second between 8
lighttpd worker threads. (Multiple worker threads keeps I/O blocking from
halting everything; with 4 CPU cores and a lot of spindles you don't want to
halt on just one file!)

Filesystem            Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/mapper/rootvg-striped
                      3.0T  521G  2.5T  18% /export

procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- --system-- ----cpu----
 r  b   swpd   free   buff  cache   si   so    bi    bo   in    cs us sy id wa
 5  1    192  27844 1218704 5617736    0    0  3296   108 6282 16359  1  7 52 40
 4  0    192  27328 1217796 5618904    0    0  3500   161 6308 14198  1  7 53 39
 0  0    192  25832 1217348 5620912    0    0  2905    75 6027 14952  1  7 61 31

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20051122/03c909ac/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Marcio Pereira

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Brazilian Portuguese

body:
--------- Mensagem Original --------
De: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
Para: wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org <wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org>
Assunto: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Brazilian Portuguese
Data: 22/11/05 15:27

> On 11/22/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > It seems quite interesting to me that this is at least the second
> > request we've seen with regards to Portugues do Brasil.
> >
> > A while back, somebody was adding pages in "Brazilian" at
br.wiki
> > (really for the Breton language), too.
> >
> > I certainly don't think it needs a separate Wikipedia, but it's an
> > interesting consideration.
> >
> > Mark
>
> Is this really significantly different from the division in English
> around the world, or various regional dialects of French?
>
> --
> Sam

Sorry, I don?t know about the division in English or French dialects.
In Brazil, the language has a lot of verbs and words that has different
meanings to the same in European Portuguese.
Also the correct writing is different in a lot of ways.
The interface of almost all the programs is translated to Brazilian
Portuguese to be more accepted in the country. "File" is "Ficheiro" in the
portuguese translation and "Arquivo" in Brazilian translation. "Display" is
"ecr?" in portuguese and "tela" or "monitor" in Brazil. The "pt" is changed
to "pt-br" to eliminate the confusion.
You can say a whole phrase that has two different meanings in Portugal and
Brazil, using the same words.
That could lead to interpretation mistakes from time to time.
Also there will be confusion on the correct writing, since the articles are
not written in the correct way used in Brazil.
The language (with all the differences) is used by 180.000.000 people.

I don?t know if that is significant difference to the Wikipedia standards,
to justify a Brazilian Portuguese project. It is for a lot of other
projects.

Is it significant ?

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

__________________________________________________________
Mensagem enviada usando o Webmail da ViaLink ver. 2.7.8


from_name: Harald Hanek

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Gollum now in english

body:
> In the translation page however the language shows as a possible target
> in the list, however when choosing it, there is an error message
> saying the language is not known (or something like that, in German)

Sorry, now ok.


from_name: geni

body:
On 11/22/05, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> "Sam Korn" <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cbffa3750511211511m6ea7055g2cd7f9fb82ff3c8f at mail.gmail.com...
> On 11/21/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > I cannot believe that a Wikipedia editor is seriously suggesting that
> > > research is too much to ask.  Please reconsider.
> > Please attempt RC patrol at ~12-1am UTC on a weekday.  Then you will
> > see what I mean.
>
> Please consider doing your RC patrol at a time when you are alert enough to
> do it properly. If you are in the wrong timezone, that's hardly your fault.
>
> You presumably wouldn't drive or "operate heavy machinery" (to borrow the
> cough syrup clich?) when you are feeling tired: why treat what you obviously
> regard as an important job with any less care?
> --
> Phil
> [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]

It doesn't matter how alert you are. At certain times (ok pretty much
anytime except sunday morning) RC patrol is all about speed. Those ten
minutes you spent reseaching were ten minuites which could have been
spent keeping out vandalism.

--
geni


from_name: Walter van Kalken

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: new language policy

body:
I will send it again as I am under the impression nobody read it.

Anthere wrote:

>
> then, I suppose you would rather support the idea of letting new
> languages develop on a seed wiki... and see to which point it is viable ?
>
> This still raise the issue of "when do we consider a language should
> be removed from the seed wiki and put in the live wiki" (even though
> the entire content might be a hoax :-)) ?
>
> Ant

Why do it difficult with seedwiki's. Give languages a chance on a real
wiki for say three months. If they haven't created 100 articles of some
length by then (so not 1 line, but lets say approx 10 lines at least) we
lock them. Also make a requirement that a new language has one "adopter"
an experienced wikipedian that regardless if he speaks the language or
not will guide the new wikipedians on the pad of NPOV etc. And who will
be a preliminary admin so he will be able to kick vandalism. This should
be a commitment by that person. If the adopter fails the commitment and
the wiki gets spammed out of existence we lock it. Also an adopter
shouldn't be able to adopt more than one language at the same time.

By doing this you help a language to seriously start up and give people
in the fledgling community someone to learn from. The adopter could even
help think of a strategy to make the fledgling wikipedia reach at least
100 articles of reasonable quality.

This way we can ensure a language gets a serious chance. If the native
speakers of that language do not take that chance we lock the pedia.
Plain and simple.

Give people a fair chance. Do not make a decision by voting. If there
are a couple of people (could be even one very active person) who claim
they speak the lingo and an experienced wikipedian willing to adopt the
language give it a chance. This is equal opportunity. Everyone gets a
shot. If you blow it you blow it and your next requests will not be
taken seriously!

Waerth/Walter

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: new language policy


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Chinese wikipedia unblocked?

body:
I will send it again as I have a feeling I am being ignored

As I was told that we shouldn't do anything so the Chinese wikipedia
would get unblocked I am curious ...... is it still blocked? If so I
feel we should change tactics.

Waerth/Walter


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [WikiEN-l] Lauritsen speedy deletion??

body:
On 11/21/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is research more difficult to perform during those hours for some
> reason?  Is Google less accessible, perhaps, or do your arms tire and
> becom unable to lift books from the shelf and open them?  Assuming
> that both of those circumstances pertain, perhaps you should refrain
> from performing RC patrol at that time of day.  Especially if it may
> lead to your deletion of articles without bothering to perform any
> research.

If pages filling the speedy criteria during those hours, I will not be
doing research to rescue them.  At other times, the amount of
vandalism is far lower, so there's more time to research.  My method
is fully within policy.

--
Sam


body:
On 11/22/05, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> "Sam Korn" <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cbffa3750511211511m6ea7055g2cd7f9fb82ff3c8f at mail.gmail.com...
> On 11/21/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > I cannot believe that a Wikipedia editor is seriously suggesting that
> > > research is too much to ask.  Please reconsider.
> > Please attempt RC patrol at ~12-1am UTC on a weekday.  Then you will
> > see what I mean.
>
> Please consider doing your RC patrol at a time when you are alert enough to
> do it properly. If you are in the wrong timezone, that's hardly your fault.
>
> You presumably wouldn't drive or "operate heavy machinery" (to borrow the
> cough syrup clich?) when you are feeling tired: why treat what you obviously
> regard as an important job with any less care?

I said precisely nothing about not being alert.  I was only referring
to the amount of vandalism at those times.

--
Sam


from_name: Ribamar Santarosa de Sousa

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Brazilian Portuguese

body:
Marcio  (as you can imagine by reading my name, I'm also Brazilian) :

>
> Sorry, I don?t know about the division in English or French dialects.
> In Brazil, the language has a lot of verbs and words that has different
> meanings to the same in European Portuguese.
> Also the correct writing is different in a lot of ways.
> The interface of almost all the programs is translated to Brazilian
> Portuguese to be more accepted in the country. "File" is "Ficheiro" in the
> portuguese translation and "Arquivo" in Brazilian translation. "Display" is
> "ecr?" in portuguese and "tela" or "monitor" in Brazil. The "pt" is changed
> to "pt-br" to eliminate the confusion.
> You can say a whole phrase that has two different meanings in Portugal and
> Brazil, using the same words.
> That could lead to interpretation mistakes from time to time.
> Also there will be confusion on the correct writing, since the articles are
> not written in the correct way used in Brazil.
> The language (with all the differences) is used by 180.000.000 people.
>
> I don?t know if that is significant difference to the Wikipedia standards,
> to justify a Brazilian Portuguese project. It is for a lot of other
> projects.
>
> Is it significant ?
>

  The hardest problem concerning the portuguese wikip?dia isn't in
differences between
the european and american portuguese. In general, the differences can
be well understood by both people, and, for the hardests differences,
the community must make efforts toward provinding rules for writing
articles that can be well understood for every portuguese speaker.
Note that these are no special rules; rules for writing good articles
must be provided in any wikipedia: consider the differences existing
even inside of the brazilian portuguese (we would need to conceive
such rules even if we had a separate wikip?dia).
  The main problem we must focus on is to increase the quality of the
portuguese wikip?dia. For example, let's look at:
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filosofia_do_direito
That is very easily accessible from the page [[pt:filosofia]], which
in turn has a link from the main page of the wikip?dia. Even being a
stub, it looks like a regional article, citing Brazilian law's
philosophers (and not citing Portuguese ones). If it's really
important to cite such philosophers, one should create on that page a
section "Law's philosophy around the world" and cite them in an entry
"Brazil", so, another one could add an entry for "Portugal" or any
other country. Or one could even create a page "Law's Philosophy in
Brazil", if the subject is worthy.

Such bad written articles are harder to understand than those with one
or more meaning-misleading word, beyond making the reader to read
possibly-insignificant  text, while the other possibility has, at
least, the advantage of making the reader to have contact with new
existing words.

 Much work in increasing the quality of the portuguese wikip?dia and
bringing new editors to it must be done before thinking in breaking it
in two or more. For now, we need to stay together, imho.

Regards,
Riba.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Brazilian Portuguese

body:
On 11/22/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems quite interesting to me that this is at least the second
> request we've seen with regards to Portugues do Brasil.
>
> A while back, somebody was adding pages in "Brazilian" at br.wiki
> (really for the Breton language), too.
>
> I certainly don't think it needs a separate Wikipedia, but it's an
> interesting consideration.
>
> Mark

Is this really significantly different from the division in English
around the world, or various regional dialects of French?

--
Sam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Lauritsen speedy deletion??

body:
On 11/22/05, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> It is, however, wholly outside any realm of reason or what is good
> for the project.

The kind of page I would delete is the one that says "John Smith is a
brilliant footballer.  One day he's going to play in the Premiership!"
 That line would be speediable under A7.  It is not good content that
gets deleted.  It is only bad stuff.

--
Sam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Lauritsen speedy deletion??

body:
On 11/22/05, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> But, to review, that is not what the Lauritsen article was.

I wasn't talking about specifics.  I can't, as I can't access
Wikipedia at the moment.  I was talking about the general point.

--
Sam


from_name: Jack Lynch

subject: [WikiEN-l] [Fwd: crew]

body: (This message removed from archives by request.)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Brazilian Portuguese

body:
On 11/22/05, Marcio Pereira <marcio at csp.org.br> wrote:
> Sorry, I don?t know about the division in English or French dialects.
> In Brazil, the language has a lot of verbs and words that has different
> meanings to the same in European Portuguese.
> Also the correct writing is different in a lot of ways.
> The interface of almost all the programs is translated to Brazilian
> Portuguese to be more accepted in the country. "File" is "Ficheiro" in the
> portuguese translation and "Arquivo" in Brazilian translation. "Display" is
> "ecr?" in portuguese and "tela" or "monitor" in Brazil. The "pt" is changed
> to "pt-br" to eliminate the confusion.
> You can say a whole phrase that has two different meanings in Portugal and
> Brazil, using the same words.
> That could lead to interpretation mistakes from time to time.
> Also there will be confusion on the correct writing, since the articles are
> not written in the correct way used in Brazil.
> The language (with all the differences) is used by 180.000.000 people.
>
> I don?t know if that is significant difference to the Wikipedia standards,
> to justify a Brazilian Portuguese project. It is for a lot of other
> projects.
>
> Is it significant ?

That does sound a very significant difference to me.  I personally
wouldn't object to a Brazialian Portugese Wikipedia, though I do think
the two should generally collaborate.

Just my opinion, of course.

--
Sam


from_name: Ilya N.

body:
The only problem I was seeing with the validation feature is large-scale
vandalism on large articles and no way to detect it.

On 11/22/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
> stevertigo wrote:
>
> > Open question:
> > * How is the validation feature supposed to work?
>
>
> Read:
>
> [[m:Article validation feature]]
> [[m:En validation topics]]
> [[m:Article validation possible problems]]
>
>
> > * How is it to be refined?
> > * How is the data to be used and processed?
>
>
> The current plan is to gather the data and ... do nothing with it. All
> ratings will be visible, exactly as all edits are visible. Nothing will
> be done with the numbers for now except a numerical average per revision
> ID.
>
> The thing is that we don't know what shape the data will take, what
> anticipated problems will eventuate, whether we actually *need* to
> separate anon (reader) and logged-in (editor) votes, etc. So if we
> gather the data *then* throw it at the researchers, etc., to work out
> what it all means, we can then gather data in a more useful way.
>
>
> > * How is such data going to be reinput to work on the
> > wiki to produce results?
>
>
> That's what we can't know until we see what shape the data takes.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
~Ilya N.
http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia)


from_name: Jiaming Xu

body:
Yes, the whole Wikipedia is still dead blocked in China, including the .zh
section.

On 11/22/05, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
>
> I will send it again as I have a feeling I am being ignored
>
> As I was told that we shouldn't do anything so the Chinese wikipedia
> would get unblocked I am curious ...... is it still blocked? If so I
> feel we should change tactics.
>
> Waerth/Walter
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Andrew Lih

body:
On 11/22/05, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> I will send it again as I have a feeling I am being ignored
>
> As I was told that we shouldn't do anything so the Chinese wikipedia
> would get unblocked I am curious ...... is it still blocked? If so I
> feel we should change tactics.

A letter was sent by Wikipedian Shizhao in Beijing to the relevant ISP
to request the site to be unblocked.

You might also find this recent post from Jimbo interesting.

The argument that I put forward in my talk in Tunis at the World Summit
on the Information Society can be summarized as follows:

1.  Wikipedia is neither critical nor supportive of the Chinese
government.  We are not a site for dissidents nor for government
supporters.  We are neutral.  NPOV is non-negotiable.  It is impossible
to portray Wikipedia as anti-Chinese government unless the Chinese
government wants to argue that neutral information is anti-Chinese
government, and I don't think that's what they intend to say at all.

2.  It isn't *just* that Chinese people cannot read any of Wikipedia,
most of which is not about political or sensitive topics at all.  It is
that Chinese people are unable to *express* their views and culture in
the Chinese Wikipedia or English Wikipedia or anywhere else, so long as
Wikipedia is blocked.  Since, I am told, the Chinese wikipedians tend to
have more of a "mainland" view of things, as compared to Chinese living
in Taiwan or Hong Kong, the ironic effect of the Chinese censorship is
to censor the mainland perspective on world affairs.

It is fine to criticize the Chinese government for censorship of
criticism.  But my argument was not about that at all, since we are not
critics of the Chinese government.  My argument was that censoring
Wikipedia in China is ironically censoring *the rest of the world* from
hearing the voice of the Chinese people.

--Jimbo


from_name: Pawe³ Dembowski

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Brazilian Portuguese

body:
> That does sound a very significant difference to me.  I personally
> wouldn't object to a Brazialian Portugese Wikipedia, though I do think
> the two should generally collaborate.
> Just my opinion, of course.
> Sam

It looks like the differences aren't bigger than between British and
American English.

--
Ausir


body:
Consider a bot (or many humans) going into the validation system and sending
totally bogus (or even offensive) entries into it.

On 11/22/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
> Ilya N. wrote:
>
> > The only problem I was seeing with the validation feature is large-scale
> > vandalism on large articles and no way to detect it.
>
>
> Uh? I don't understand what you mean ...
>
>
> - d.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
~Ilya N.
http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia)


from_name: ilooy

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Request for Adminship in Ladino Wikipedia

body:
==== Ladino Wikipedia ====
I request bureaucrat access on lad.wikipedia.org
*'''language code''': lad
*'''local request page''': [[lad:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]]
*'''My userpage on that wiki''': [[lad:User:ILVI]]
Thank you. --[[User:ILVI]] 23:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


from_name: Brian Haws

subject: [WikiEN-l] Lauritsen speedy deletion??

body:
--- geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/22/05, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
>
> > This debate strikes me as being one, at its core,
> about eventualism
> > versus immediatism. Tony is arguing that the
> encyclopedia will clean
> > itself up eventually, and that if in doubt, it's
> better to leave
> > possible CSDs alone. Sam and geni are arguing from
> an immediatist
> > perspective, that if it can't be cleaned up
> immediately and is of no
> > encyclopedic value *as it is now*, then it's best
> junked.
>
> Oh nothing that simple. Eventualism gives two ways
> to analyise the situation:
> Leveing rubish doesn't matter becuase it will
> improve
> Deleting rubish doesn't matter becuase there will be
> plently more
> along in five minutes.
>
> Thus eventualism doesn't ultimately support either
> side.
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

But eventualism does support a tag and bag
system...during high volume periods, if garbage gets
through, the vast majority of it will end up in orphan
or lonelypage special pages. Now, there's a large
backlog there but they are filtered in that way and
can be examined, they are not lost in the vastness of
Wikipedia. (if I understand those special pages
correctly)

I see invalid speedy deletions everytime I look, valid
content is lost, good new users are confused, annoyed
and in some cases lost. If we're not going to honor
speedy criteria then why even have them? Garbage
content hurts us as does losing valid content...but we
have control over deleting garbage...once good content
is lost, for the most part it's just gone, we don't
know when or if we'll ever get it back...

I think there's a way to make tag and bag work if we
want to, keeping encyclodpedic content is what we're
supposed to be doing...anyway, sorry for the rant....


from_name: John Lee

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Wikipedia's provable anti-expertise bias (was
	Howdidthis happen (comixpedia??))

body:
Matt Brown wrote:

>On 11/21/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
>
>>Bollocks it's verboten to speedy merge. Anyone who thinks it is has a
>>bad case of process over product and is inappropriately asserting the
>>supremacy of AFD over writing an encyclopedia.
>>
>>
>
>Wholly agreed.  Although I know already that merges have been undone
>for entirely that reason.  I'm surprised nobody has an issue with
>anyone making any edits to a AFD'd article.
>
>-Matt
>
>
 From my past experience with VfD (in other words, pre-AFD), people
always get very very pissed when an article is merged and redirected if
it is on VfD or already had been on VfD and kept. For some reason,
people seem to think VfD/AFD is the final word on what an article's
status should be. Perhaps in a simple black and white, delete or keep
world it is. But in a world where there are shades of grey such as merge
& redirect, this position is illogical.

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Foundation-l] RE:New language policy

body:
pikola Thierry wrote:
> According to the point 2 in
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposed_policy_for_wikis_in_new_languages
>
> the language proposed must have a standard writing
> system.
>
> If we approve the creation of Wikipedias such as
> Andalusian Spanish, we would create a Wikipedia where
> the users will have to create their own standard. This
> would be a huge contradiction with the Wikipedia
> principle against including original research, because
> the Wikipedia itself would become a linguistic
> research project in order to ellaborate a standard
> written form of the Spanish speech from Andalusia.
>
I disagree that a language should have a standard orthography. When a
language has no standard, there are several existing models that a
community can deal with this. There is the Neapolitan model where all
comers are welcome and where some ensure consistency within the
different orthographies and there is the Lower Saxon model where a
specific orthography is enforced.
> Wikimedia community should decide which role new
> Wikipedias play on new writing systems creation.
>
> Another problem of creating such Wikipedia is that the
> great majority of Andalusian speakers don't feel that
> they talk a different language than the rest of the
> Spanish speakers. Therefore, Wikimedia would become a
> non neutral part on the sociolinguistic discussion
> about language identity of Andalusian speakers. If we
> create an Andalusian Wikipedia we would agree on the
> claim that Andalusian is a separate language from
> Spanish.
>
When you single out Andalusian, you say that a majority does feel a
thing which means that a minority does not. Your assertion that
Wikimedia would take a position is one, I would rather say that it is
the community that does foster Andalusian as a language does take this
position. When they prove their case and create a thriving Wikipedia
they have a point. When the Wikipedia does not take off, the other side
would have a point. By denying the opportunity for the Andalusians to
have a Wikipedia, we would take a position, a position that we do not
need to take.
> Another funny thing which should happen is that,
> taking into account that latinoamerican Spanish has
> significantly evolved from Andalusian Spanish, then,
> all the latinoamerican Spanish speakers should learn
> this special new writing system used in Wikipedia,
> adopting it to their local Spanish variation.
> Therefore they should actually be members of the
> Andalusian Wikipedia. Then Andalucian will become one
> of the largest languages of the world ;oD (half
> kidding)
>
If this is the case, why do you argue against the existence of Andalusian ?
> Anyway, what I wanted to say is that I really think
> that Wikimedia Foundation should take much into
> account two points:
> Speakers identity and existence of a standard writing
> on that language.
>
> I think that Wikimedia should not be active part of
> language creation, neither of language identity
> discusion.
The Wikimedia Foundation does not take an active part in language
creation. A language exists or it does not. For artificial languages the
Foundation has a different set of standards. We do not allow for these
as easily as with existing languages/ dialects. As far as we should be
concerned, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

My position is that it does not take away much when projects in dialects
and languages. The fact that there are three existing wikipedias for
languages that are spoken in the Netherlands does not take anything away
from the nl.wikipedia. If anything we cooperate and each has its own
community. Spain is so much bigger than the Netherlands, I think it
should cherish its diversity and if that means be gracious to all of the
languages that exist in Spain.

Thanks,
    GerardM


subject: [Foundation-l] RE:New language policy


from_name: Bryan Derksen

body:
geni wrote:

>On 11/22/05, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Why not? If it can't, either feed them in more slowly in the first place
>>or extend the IfD deadline to allow the backlog to build up without
>>overwhelming processing.
>>
>>
>>
>5000 links causes issues with page load time. The page would probably
>be inacesserble on dialup and frankly and meaningful review of that
>number of images would be imposible.
>
>
Oh, come on. If you go with my "feed them in slowly" suggestion, then
you never get 5000 links in the queue to begin with. If you go with my
"put big surges in a backlog so there's time to process them at liesure"
suggestion, you can just use the same tried and true approaches that are
used in the high-volume AfD process to manage them (eg., split them up
over multiple pages). These are perfectly simple answers that you should
have thought of considering how long you've been involved in
deletion-related discussions here.

>>If we're having to delete articles without taking adequate care because
>>our current mechanisms aren't capable of providing adequate care, that's
>>an argument for changing our current mechanisms rather than an argument
>>that we _should_ be deleting articles that way.
>>
>>
>
>We did change stuff after that. We redid all our fair use templates.
>Now we just need to get people to read them.
>
>
As far as I can tell this is a non sequitur. My text above was in
response to speedy-deleting orphaned fair-use articles on the basis that
they're _orphaned_, after I pointed out that orphanhood can be a result
of vandalism on other articles that you can't detect at a glance when
you're only examining the image information page. Are you suggesting
that changing the fair use notice templates would somehow prevent
vandals from deleting the images from articles that use them in valid
ways? Vandals, by their very nature, don't pay attention to such things.

My basic point remains. An image should never be speedy-deleted soley
because it's an orphan, because with the current software there's no way
to tell whether its orphanhood is a temporary state. Such images should
be given more careful consideration, at the very least a time delay to
allow for the possibility that its orphan status will change in the near
future.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Brazilian Portuguese

body:
> Such bad written articles are harder to understand than those with one
> or more meaning-misleading word, beyond making the reader to read
> possibly-insignificant  text, while the other possibility has, at
> least, the advantage of making the reader to have contact with new
> existing words.

A similar problem exists on other wikipedias. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Globalize

--
Ausir


subject: [Foundation-l] RE:New language policy

body:
Hi to all fellow wikipedians,

When considering the case of an Andalusian
Wikipedia and how the vote is going at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages
Here are some highlights:

1. A lot of (N) native speakers support it
2. Opposers are non-speakers.
3. Many opposers are Castilian speakers.
4. Andalusian pre-dates the Reconquest of Spain by the "Catholic
Kings" (Castile-Aragon) it is not a "new dialect of Castilian".
5. There are actual writing systems already in use on the internet
which represent Andalusian speech and showcase its differences with
Castilian.

These reasons alone would speak well
for the creation of an Andalusian Wikipedia.
Give it a try, I say, maybe a "try-out" and see.

With regards,
Jay B.
[[en:User:ILVI]]


subject: [Foundation-l] RE:New language policy


subject: [WikiEN-l] Lauritsen speedy deletion??

body:
--- geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/23/05, Brian Haws <brian at bhaws.com> wrote:
> > But eventualism does support a tag and bag
> > system...during high volume periods, if garbage
> gets
> > through, the vast majority of it will end up in
> orphan
> > or lonelypage special pages. Now, there's a large
> > backlog there but they are filtered in that way
> and
> > can be examined, they are not lost in the vastness
> of
> > Wikipedia. (if I understand those special pages
> > correctly)
> >
>
> No it doesn't since eventualism position allows you
> to conclude there
> is nothing to be lost by deleting rubish

There is nothing to be lost by deleting rubbish...
>
> > I see invalid speedy deletions everytime I look,
> valid
> > content is lost, good new users are confused,
> annoyed
> > and in some cases lost. If we're not going to
> honor
> > speedy criteria then why even have them?
>
> I gives people a lovely warm feeling.
>
> >Garbage
> > content hurts us as does losing valid
> content...but we
> > have control over deleting garbage...once good
> content
> > is lost, for the most part it's just gone, we
> don't
> > know when or if we'll ever get it back...
> >
>
> Eventualism means that you don't have to worry about
> when and juding
> by the number of new pages that surface on my
> watchlist there is no
> real question of if.

What I mean is that we have no control over the
addition of a certain topic. If someone adds a page on
some city in Italy and it gets deleted, we have no
idea when or if it'll be added again....
>
> > I think there's a way to make tag and bag work if
> we
> > want to, keeping encyclodpedic content is what
> we're
> > supposed to be doing...anyway, sorry for the
> rant....
> >
>
> Encyclodpedic content is a subjective term and
> therefor useless.

It is subjective to a certain degree, everyone has a
slightly different idea of what it means, but the fact
remains that our job is adding content that the
community generally considers valid to wikipedia...
>
> --
> geni

The point is that high volume isn't a reason not to
use tag and bag. If garbage gets by the first line of
RC patrol, we still know where to look for it. And in
the meantime we aren't deleting as much valid content,
as defined by what doesn't fit speedy criteria. It may
or may not get by AFD, but at least there are more
eyes on it...as there should be on speedies....
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Google Alert - Wikipedia

body:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Daniel Mayer wrote:

> --- Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> > For those of you who were around when it kicked off... when it
> > went live, was it intended to become a reference tool *on the
> > web* like it has now, or was the web process intended to be
> > somewhat less obvious than it became (a top-40 site, eek)?
> > Open, yes, freely editable, yes, but a live "proper"
> > encyclopedia from Year One?
>
> My first edit was on 2 January 2002. Boy was the place a mess (have you seen
> UseMod ; ugly ; en.wikipedia had less than 20,000 articles and Larry Sanger was
> still around). But I loved it since there was so much to do. Almost every
> article I saw was obviously a work in progress. We were still working out basic
> rules and conventions. WikiProjects were just getting underway. Just about
> anybody could have a major influence on policy formation and the direction of
> WikiProjects.
>
> At the time we thought it would take us 5 years to to reach our initial goal of
> 100,000 articles. All the focus I saw was on development, not use in the near
> to mid term. I don't think anybody, except maybe Jimbo, could have dreamed we
> would get so popular so fast, or so useful.
>
> Now when I look around, most articles that cover subjects encyclopedias should
> cover look fairly complete. Articles on technology, popular culture, and
> current events are even better on average.
>
> Wikipedia becoming useful; well, that is something that kinda snuck up on me
> while I was helping make it useful. I'm sure it also surprised many other old
> timers as well. The idea seemed too far in the future to even think about.
>
I haven't been around as long as Mav (I still kinda consider him one of the
"authentic original Wikipedians"), but much of what he says above
could be my words.

But if I could build on what he wrote, one thing worth noting is the speed
of change in this project. I've mentioned in the past the problem that some
important policies are proposed & adopted before some of us who have been
on Wikipedia for a while notice. Usually there is no problem: give me a
little time to understand & adjust, & I will accept any new proposal that
is based on common sense.

Another point is that I feel compelled to defend the quality of Wikipedia
because, in part, it is my baby, but also because I know that the
professional experts are guilty of more acts of botched analyses & bad
writing than they want to admit to. Wikipedia is not only reinventing
the idea of an encyclopedia but also the (excuse me) paradigm of academia:
while our structure makes it easy for cranks, kooks & partisans to push
their own agendas here, it also frees us from the abuse of authorities
who expect us to accept their biasses as profound new discoveries or
insights.

Perhaps most of these changes will have worked their way out in the ten
years that Andrew mentions above. I can only hope that, unlike Moses,
I will be permitted to enter that Promised Land when they have finished,
& see what this experiment has led to.

Geoff


from_name: Karl A. Krueger

subject: [WikiEN-l] Lauritsen speedy deletion??

body:
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 12:34:54AM +0800, John Lee wrote:
> This debate strikes me as being one, at its core, about eventualism
> versus immediatism. Tony is arguing that the encyclopedia will clean
> itself up eventually, and that if in doubt, it's better to leave
> possible CSDs alone. Sam and geni are arguing from an immediatist
> perspective, that if it can't be cleaned up immediately and is of no
> encyclopedic value *as it is now*, then it's best junked. Sam is right
> in that his approach is compliant with existing policy, as he is
> deleting articles of no encyclopedic value. Tony is also justified in
> saying that it may be better to clean up the article and replace the
> unencyclopedic material instead of outright deleting.

Well, of course it's best to replace the unencyclopedic material with
encyclopedic material.  But sometimes the best is the enemy of the good.
(If you insist that a person not do _anything_ to help a situation if
they can't do the _best_ thing, then you decrease dramatically the
likelihood that anyone will do anything to help at all.)

It is certainly _good_ (although not best) to speedily delete "dis d00d
is kewl" articles, because they drag down the overall quality of the
encyclopedia.  Because doing so is good, it is not merely acceptable but
also to be encouraged ... when a better alternative is not convenient.

(Remember, just because a junk article is speedied *doesn't* mean that a
non-junk article under the same title will be deleted.  Deleting junk
doesn't get in the way of creating value.)

And junk articles aren't merely of "no encyclopedic value" -- they are
of _negative_ value to the encyclopedia, just as vandalism, spam, or
attack pages are.  Removing "dis d00d is kewl" or "your mom so gay"
articles is an active improvement and should be encouraged by everyone
who cares about retaining and including more value in the project.

--
Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger at whoi.edu>


from_name: Andy Rabagliati

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Brazilian Portuguese

body:
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Ribamar Santarosa de Sousa wrote:

>  Much work in increasing the quality of the portuguese wikip?dia and
> bringing new editors to it must be done before thinking in breaking it
> in two or more. For now, we need to stay together, imho.

I think the Portuguese and Brazilian editors have done a commendable job
by keeping it as one wikipedia - there is so much more to be gained by
collaborating.

I hope it sets an example for other wikipedias.

Cheers,     Andy!


subject: [WikiEN-l] Lauritsen speedy deletion??

body:
On 11/22/05, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
> Sam Korn stated for the record:
> > If pages filling the speedy criteria during those hours, I will not be
> > doing research to rescue them.  At other times, the amount of
> > vandalism is far lower, so there's more time to research.  My method
> > is fully within policy.
>
> Ja, he vas only followink orders....

I think I have been arguing at cross-purposes all evening.  Ah well.

--
Sam


from_name: Michael Snow

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Deletion and the Sabbath (was Wikipedia's provable
 anti-expertise bias)

body:
Phil Boswell wrote:

>AFD is like the Sabbath: it was intended to serve Wikipedia, not the other
>way around.
>
So, perhaps we should simply delete every seventh article?

--Michael Snow


from_name: Walter van Kalken

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Chinese wikipedia unblocked?

body:
Ting Chen wrote:

>>I have thought some time ago that we should have a page summarizing the
>>successive blocks (date, range etc...), and the actions done to try to
>>lift them up. I felt uncertain if we should do this at all, but hearing
>>that we are still blocked, I really feel we should.
>>
>>
>
>I support this suggestion. This page should also list other blocks (I think
>I heard that some language versions ware or are blocked by Iran).
>
I do agree on that. There is one but. We have given the people who
negotiated with the Chinese government some backing by not being to loud
about our being blocked. I feel that if negotiations are being held with
the Iranian government they should be given some time as well.

Waerth/Walter


subject: [WikiEN-l] Lauritsen speedy deletion??

body:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 11:18:16PM +0000, Sam Korn wrote:
> On 11/22/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > You're a Wikipedia editor, not a jobsworth.  Of course research is demanded.
>
> I think we are probably crossing wires about what I would delete.  I
> would only delete something that was plainly outside policy.  Remember
> that I generally am just as keen to keep stuff as you are.  I am just
> saying that I don't research every deletion I make, because there
> simply isn't time.  Note that I don't take A7 to mean "this guy isn't
> notable" but "this article doesn't claim this guy is notable".  I
> consider myself very generous in this point of view.

This is exactly correct.  A7 says that if an article about a person
fails to _assert_ notability, the article can be speedied.

It doesn't mean deleting articles because we don't *believe* their
claims of notability.  It means deleting articles that don't *bother* to
make any claims of notability.

A7 doesn't require that we research and evaluate the truth of an
article's claims.  When reviewing an article under A7, we should assume
that everything it says is precisely true.  If what it says *still*
isn't notable, that's when A7 requires deletion.

Consider the following article:

	Joe Schmoo

	Joe Schmoo is Fred Bloggs's cousin.  He is a fun guy at parties.

Under A7 review, we don't need to research whether or not Joe Schmoo is
Fred Bloggs's cousin.  We don't need to research whether he is a fun guy
at parties.  We can assume, for the time being, that the article is
correct, and that these things are true.

Under this assumption, we then ask if any of the claims made are
notable.  None are.  Neither being Fred Bloggs's cousin, nor being a fun
guy at parties, is a reason that a person should be in an encyclopedia.

That's all we need.

Under A7, the Joe Schmoo article is eligible for deletion.

It doesn't matter if there are other notable facts about Joe Schmoo.
(Could be that he's a famous researcher in biodynamic insect physics who
published a ground-breaking article on bee fusion.)  The article didn't
state any of those claims, so they don't enter into the A7 review.

If someone wants to come along later and write a new article about Joe
Schmoo that *does* claim notability, that's great!  They're absolutely
permitted to do so, and the previous A7 deletion *must not* militate
against the new, notable article.

--
Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger at whoi.edu>


body:
Anthere wrote:
<>Anthere wrote:

> Jiaming Xu wrote:
>
>> Yes, the whole Wikipedia is still dead blocked in China, including
>> the .zh
>> section.
>>
>> On 11/22/05, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I will send it again as I have a feeling I am being ignored
>>>
>>> As I was told that we shouldn't do anything so the Chinese wikipedia
>>> would get unblocked I am curious ...... is it still blocked? If so I
>>> feel we should change tactics.
>>>
>>> Waerth/Walter
>>
>
>
> Waerth, you are removing words from my mouth...

 >Oooops, a gentle english speaker indicated that my use of words were
quite incorrect here and could lead to confusion. He said >I should have
said "you took the words right out of my mouth"
 >I did not mean to say anything ungentle to Waerth, I was just jumping
on the opportunity he offered me in opening the subject :-)
Doesn't matter Anthere I hadn't noticed it untill you mentioned it just
now ;)

Walter/Waerth


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: New language policy

body:
pikola Thierry wrote:
> According to the point 2 in
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposed_policy_for_wikis_in_new_languages
>
> the language proposed must have a standard writing
> system.
>
> If we approve the creation of Wikipedias such as
> Andalusian Spanish, we would create a Wikipedia where
> the users will have to create their own standard. This
> would be a huge contradiction with the Wikipedia
> principle against including original research, because
> the Wikipedia itself would become a linguistic
> research project in order to ellaborate a standard
> written form of the Spanish speech from Andalusia.
>
> Wikimedia community should decide which role new
> Wikipedias play on new writing systems creation.
>
> Another problem of creating such Wikipedia is that the
> great majority of Andalusian speakers don't feel that
> they talk a different language than the rest of the
> Spanish speakers. Therefore, Wikimedia would become a
> non neutral part on the sociolinguistic discussion
> about language identity of Andalusian speakers. If we
> create an Andalusian Wikipedia we would agree on the
> claim that Andalusian is a separate language from
> Spanish.
>
> Another funny thing which should happen is that,
> taking into account that latinoamerican Spanish has
> significantly evolved from Andalusian Spanish, then,
> all the latinoamerican Spanish speakers should learn
> this special new writing system used in Wikipedia,
> adopting it to their local Spanish variation.
> Therefore they should actually be members of the
> Andalusian Wikipedia. Then Andalucian will become one
> of the largest languages of the world ;oD (half
> kidding)
>
> Anyway, what I wanted to say is that I really think
> that Wikimedia Foundation should take much into
> account two points:
> Speakers identity and existence of a standard writing
> on that language.
>
> I think that Wikimedia should not be active part of
> language creation, neither of language identity
> discusion.
>
> Thank you,
> Javier Carro.

I rather agree with the last statement... which is why I rarely comment
on all the discussions regarding all languages creation, and will not
comment specifically on Andalusian, Zlatiborian or other Brazilian
portuguese :-)
Plus, I am not a linguist, so my own comments would have little value :-)

The only reasons why I think Wikimedia is concerned by language
creation... are
* public image of seriousness ---> suspicion regarding unnatural
languages or hoaxes
* practical reasons ---> as soon as the Foundation *pays* for hosting
these languages, then the Foundation has a little bit to say on the
matter :-)

Taking into account speakers identity and existence of a standard
writing on that language is not the job of the Foundation. It is the job
of the community.

Aside from this, the Foundation is not only a paper, it is also people.
And though some editors sometimes forget it, board members sometimes
have pet projects and like to be involved in them, regardless of their
job on the Foundation. Errrr, and my questions about the seriousness of
a vote where most voters are anons or sockpuppets should be seen as
questions of an editor :-)

ant


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: New language policy


from_name: Anders Wegge Jakobsen

body:
"Andrew" == Andrew Venier <avenier at venier.net> writes:

> S. Woodside wrote:
>> Conjecture 4. That the development of a wikipedia article over time
>> occurs in a manner consistent to the biological evolution of a
>> species.
>>

> I would be rather surprised to hear that our articles are
> reproducing.

 The original list of "Wikipedians who <foo>" has cloned itself
numerous times. You may argue that it's nothing more than a parasite
feeding on the host organisms desire to be part of as many groups as
possible, but vira are also a result of evolution.

--
/Wegge
Min holdning til Usenet - <http://wiki.wegge.dk/Usenet>
Min weblog - <http://blog.wegge.dk/>


from_name: Jean-Baptiste Soufron

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Preserving GFDL requirements when splitting articles

body:
Actually, this is not true. A license is an agreement between 2 people
and a declaration of will, but you have to interpret it within the
context. Since it is not possible to respect the text of the GFDL, you
have not other choice but to understand that it is a declaration of will
and to intrepret it within context.

?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason wrote:
> On 11/19/05, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2005/11/19, Michael Crouch <creidieki at gmail.com>:
>>> I'm trying to improve the English Wikipedia's documentation on article
>>> moves, and I had a GFDL question. I hope this is the right place;
>>> feel free to point me elsewhere.
>>>
>>> Articles on En are often split in a cut-and-paste way, with material
>>> from one article removed and put into another article. None of the
>>> documentation (that I can find) mentions anything about maintaining
>>> the necessary authorship information.
>>>
>>> I've been told several times (on [[Wikipedia:Help desk]] and
>>> [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)]]) to simply mention in the edit
>>> summary "This material moved from [[Foo]]". Is this adequate for the
>>> GFDL requirements? I know we might not have a perfect solution to
>>> this, but I didn't want to add anything to the documentation without
>>> making sure it was correct.
>>
>> Simply speaking: No, it is not enough according to the GNU/FDL, but
>> Wikipedia is interpreting the GNU/FDL so freely anyway that adding this to
>> it does not differ much either.
>
> Wikipedia has no legal right to "interpet the GFDL", when people save
> text they give permission to use the text under a certain license, and
> if you don't follow that license you're guilty of copyright
> infringement.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: valdelli at bluemail.ch

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: New language policy

body:
>
>The only reasons why I think Wikimedia is concerned by language
>creation... are
>* public image of seriousness ---> suspicion regarding unnatural
>languages or hoaxes

This is a good reason!

>* practical reasons ---> as soon as the Foundation *pays* for hosting
>these languages, then the Foundation has a little bit to say on the
>matter :-)

;)

>
>Taking into account speakers identity and existence of a standard
>writing on that language is not the job of the Foundation. It is the job
>

In my opinion anyone can have a chance. There can be a "start time" in which
if the xxx.wikipedia.org don't exceeds with a fixed number of articles and
members this is closed.

The example: I'm a hard opponent to lmo.wikipedia.org, because it is born
on strange basements. I live in Lombardia and I'm the first to understand
this error because "lombard" doesn't exist but are presents "lombard dialects".
The lmo.wikipedia.org has started "whitout any relevant opposition" (and
my adverse vote???). Someone has spoken about linguistics theories, about
grammars.

After some months: lmo.wikipedia.org is still discussing about grammar, orthography,
etc. and has only 19 articles. The nap.wikipedia.org, born in the same time,
has 3700 articles.

Conclusion: What is the goal of wikipedia? To save languages or dialects?
To change dialects in tongue? To define grammars or dictionaries? Or the
goal is another?

Ilario


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: New language policy


from_name: Rowan Collins

subject: [Foundation-l] Question

body:
On 22/11/05, Santi cluke <santicluke at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, I'ld like to know if there is a project to create a new space in
> the wiki foundation "Wikitree" for creating a genealogic tree based on
> this technology.

I was going to suggest you look around
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects -
particularly, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipeople

But, note that the Wikimedia Foundation isn't the only organisation
that can or does host wikis, and that even the software they use is
available for download under the name "MediaWiki".

As such, I have now spotted http://wikitree.org and
http://genealogy.wikicities.com/ which are both independent wikis
using the same software as Wikipedia et al for this purpose.

Personally, I'm not sure the wiki concept in its current form *is* all
that suited to the task, but feel free to go forth and prove me wrong!
:D

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


subject: [Foundation-l] Question


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Lauritsen speedy deletion??

body:
On 11/22/05, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
My method
> is fully within policy.

Which policy do you claim permits you to delete articles without doing
any research?


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [WikiEN-l] Lauritsen speedy deletion??

body:
On 11/22/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/22/05, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> My method
> > is fully within policy.
>
> Which policy do you claim permits you to delete articles without doing
> any research?

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

See article A7.

Research is not demanded.

--
Sam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Lauritsen speedy deletion??

body:
On 11/22/05, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
> Tony is arguing that the encyclopedia will clean
> itself up eventually, and that if in doubt, it's better to leave
> possible CSDs alone.

You have misread me.  I have simply argued that nobody should perform
deletions without doing some research.  I hoped that we could all
agree that it is unacceptable to delete an article because you are
ignorant of the subject (which is excusable) and too lazy to either do
research or list on AfD (which is not excusable).


from_name: David Newton

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Wikisource Copyright

body:
Jean-Baptiste Soufron wrote:

>>
>> Actually Jean-Baptiste is incorrect about those terms of use. They
>> allow people to download the material on the website for their own
>> personal, non-commercial use. The UN terms and conditions do not allow
>> redistribution or compliation of the material on their website.

>Actually they allow to "download and copy". I interpret this as an
>authorization to get and copy them.

>It is true that they also forbid to "resell or redistribute" them, but I
>understand it as the interdiction to commercially use them. Not the
>interdiction to copy them for third parties because it would be
>otherwise contradictory with authorizing people to copy them.

>This seems to make sense given the current applications of these terms
>of use by people on Internet.

Those terms of use talk about personal, non-commercial use and they
explicitly prohibit redistribution and the creation of compilations of
them or derivative works of them. I interpret those terms as allowing
a person to download materials from the UN website and use them on
their own computer but, beyond fair use/fair dealing, not to
distribute them further or do anything else with them at all. What
that means is that merely sticking lots of the resolutions up on
Wikisource violates two of those terms, ie the ones about creation of
compilation works and prohibiting further distribution.

Since the use that the resolution texts has been put to on Wikisource
is prohibited by the terms and conditions of the UN copyright licence
then the only defence that is available against copyright infringement
is fair use. Given that the whole of the work is being used on
Wikisource then I am not confident of that defence at all. I have also
expressed my view that fair use should be banned on Wikisource so far
as the text of articles is concerned.

I feel that we are treading on thin legal ice here to say the least,

David Newton


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Wikisource Copyright


from_name: David Gerard

body:
stevertigo wrote:

> Open question:
> * How is the validation feature supposed to work?

Read:

[[m:Article validation feature]]
[[m:En validation topics]]
[[m:Article validation possible problems]]

> * How is it to be refined?
> * How is the data to be used and processed?

The current plan is to gather the data and ... do nothing with it. All
ratings will be visible, exactly as all edits are visible. Nothing will
be done with the numbers for now except a numerical average per revision ID.

The thing is that we don't know what shape the data will take, what
anticipated problems will eventuate, whether we actually *need* to
separate anon (reader) and logged-in (editor) votes, etc. So if we
gather the data *then* throw it at the researchers, etc., to work out
what it all means, we can then gather data in a more useful way.

> * How is such data going to be reinput to work on the
> wiki to produce results?

That's what we can't know until we see what shape the data takes.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Lauritsen speedy deletion??

body:
On 11/22/05, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/22/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 11/22/05, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > My method
> > > is fully within policy.
> >
> > Which policy do you claim permits you to delete articles without doing
> > any research?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion
>
> See article A7.
>
> Research is not demanded.

You're a Wikipedia editor, not a jobsworth.  Of course research is demanded.


from_name: Yann Forget

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Wikisource Copyright

body:
Hi,

See Soufron's detailed article about this:
http://soufron.typhon.net/article.php3?id_article=112

Regards,
Yann


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Wikisource Copyright


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Wikisource Copyright

body:
>
> Actually Jean-Baptiste is incorrect about those terms of use. They
> allow people to download the material on the website for their own
> personal, non-commercial use. The UN terms and conditions do not allow
> redistribution or compliation of the material on their website.

Actually they allow to "download and copy". I interpret this as an
authorization to get and copy them.

It is true that they also forbid to "resell or redistribute" them, but I
understand it as the interdiction to commercially use them. Not the
interdiction to copy them for third parties because it would be
otherwise contradictory with authorizing people to copy them.

This seems to make sense given the current applications of these terms
of use by people on Internet.


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Wikisource Copyright